K G SUKUMARAN NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused in C. C. 1228/59 on the file of the additional Sub Magistrate, Ponkunnam, has filed this revision petition to quash the charge that is now pending against him. THE State House Officer, kanjirappally has filed a petty case charge sheet against him for an offence under S. 290; IPC. THE offence alleged was that at a public meeting when one purushothaman Pillai was addressing the meeting the accused came near the platform and said two or three times that is not correct' AXp icnba ~ On receipt of the complaint the Magistrate proceeded to try the case under the summons case procedure and issued notice to the accused. THE accused on receipt of the summons appeared and presented a petition that even if the allegations in the complaint are true, it does not disclose any offence and that the case should not be proceeded with. THE Magistrate however dismissed the petition and proceeded to question him. THE accused pleaded not guilty. THE matter was taken up in revision to the Sessions Judge of Kottayam praying that a reference may be made to this court under S. 438 Crl. P. C. THE petition was dismissed and he has now come up in revision.

(2.) S. 290 IPC. deals with the punishment for public nuisance. It reads as follows: "whoever commits a public nuisance in any case not otherwise punishable by this Code, shall be punished with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees" The offence of public nuisance as defined in S. 268 consists in the doing of any act or illegal omission which causes any injury, danger or annoyance and the offence is complete when an act of the nature is committed or when there has been an illegal omission of the kind.

(3.) SADANADA Jash v. Shibakali Hazra (AIR. 1954 Cal. 288)is another case. In that case there was a criminal complaint over a land dispute between the complainant's brother and the accused. When the case was pending there was a compromise talk over this matter in the presence of the headmaster of the school, the complainant being one of the teachers of the school. In the course of the talk the accused told the complainant that what he was telling is a lie. For this the school master rushed to the criminal court and filed a complaint under S. 504 IPC. The accused was acquitted and on revision the order of acquittal was confirmed. The learned judge observed as follows: "one of the first principles of law is 'de minimis non curat lex'. This has found expression in S. 95, Penal Code which enacts that "nothing is an offence by reason that it causes, or that it has intended to cause, or that it is known to be likely to cause, any harm, if that harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm". "this is a complete justification for what the learned District Magistrate has done. Intercourse in civilised society will come to an end if for words uttered as in the present case, a person found himself exposed to all the trouble and worry of a criminal trial".