JAGANMOHAN RAO Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the case in brief are:- That on 15-1-1989, at about 10 A.M. accused abused CW-1 Gurudatta Naik in a public place and on public street in the Court premises of the Additional Munsiff and J.M.F.C., Bantwal, in indecent way and also in an insulting manner. Then CW-1 lodged a complaint against the accused. The Police Sub-Inspector, Buntawal, after investigation chargesheeted the accused for the offence alleged above.

(2.) The learned Magistrate, after appreciating the evidence both oral and documentary and after hearing the Counsel on both sides convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 92(l)(o) and (r) of the Karnataka Police Act, and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 251- for each count, in default to undergo S.I. for one day. Being aggrieved by the said order of conviction and sentence, the accused filed the above Criminal revision petition in the High Court, challenging the said order of conviction and sentence.

(3.) Mr. Chouta, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the learned Magistrate, is not sustainable in law and it does not fall within the mischief of Section 92 of the Police Act. He invited my attention to Section 92(1)(o) and (r) of the Karnataka Police Act, and submitted that where it was a local area, the Government by notification in the Official Gazette from time to time extends the provisions of the sub-section or any clause thereof, whoever acts contrary thereto would be liable for prosecution. The prosecution has failed to prove the most important ingredient, i.e. the allegation made by the prosecution took place in such an area. Therefore, it is submitted that it does not attract the provisions of Section 92(1) of the Karnataka Police Act. He invited my attention to two decisions of this Court, which are very clear on the point. As against this the learned State Public Prosecutor submitted that the learned Magistrate has rightly convicted the accused, on the material placed before him. Therefore, the order of the learned Magistrate is sustainable in law.