ABRAHAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition is filed by the accused in C. C. No. 929 of 1959 of the Sub-Magistrates Court, Kottayam. The Sub Magistrate convicted the petitioner for offences punishable under S.447 and 504, I. P. C, and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 25/- under each count. The conviction under S.447 was quashed in the appeal by the District Magistrate and the conviction under S.504 upheld.

(2.) The accused is a jeweller at Thirunakkara, Kottayam and the complainant, the Resident Engineer of the Kottayam Electricity Agency. The current charges due from the accused to the Electric Co. amounted to more than Rs. 1000/- on 16-11-1957. The amount was not paid in spite of repeated demands. The complainant therefore took steps to stop the supply of current. He sent his men to the accuseds shop to remove the fuse placed inside the building. The men had to return due to the accuseds resistance. On 16-11-1957 at about 10-30 A. M. they cut the aerial fuse outside the shop and disconnected the current supply. At about 2 P. M. the complainant went to the accuseds shop and told him that his conduct in having obstructed the removal of the indoor fuse was not proper. The prosecution case is that at about 4-30 P. M. the same day the accused trespassed into the complainants office attached to the power house with the object of insulting and annoying him and actually insulted him by the use of obscene language. The accused is alleged to have told the complainant Neither your master nor you not your father will be able to remove the fuse from my building. All this is mere foul gas to me.

(3.) Though the Sub-Magistrate found that the accused had gone over to the complainants office with the object of insulting him the learned District Magistrate has on a detailed analysis of the evidence, held that it is reasonable to think that the accused visited Pw. 1 in the evening for the settlement of the dispute between himself and the supply agents regarding the payment of arrears of current charges. He therefore set aside the conviction for trespass. The learned District Magistrate also found that there was a conversation between the accused and the complainant for eight or ten minutes about the payment of the arrears and due to the unpleasant atmosphere in which the talks were held the accused was provoked and finding that he could not carry the conversation he uttered the above mentioned words and left the place.