SARAMMA ZACHARIA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the decision of the Division First Class Magistrate of Chengannur in Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 1951 whereby the learned Magistrate confirmed the conviction and sentence which the Taluk Second Class Magistrate of Thiruvalla passed against the petitioner in C.C. No. 52 of 1950, for commission of an offence punishable under S.288, Travancore Penal Code (S.290 I.P.C.) The punishment awarded is a fine of Rs. Eight and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for seven days.

(2.) Of the two points raised in the revision I may at once state that there is absolutely no merit in the contention that the act attributed to the petitioner did not constitute an offence under S.288. That she used vulgar language against PW 4 in a public place and that it caused annoyance to the public have concurrently been found by the two courts below. Sitting in revision I cannot interfere with those findings. It is futile to argue that such conduct in a public place will not amount to public nuisance.

(3.) Nor is there any substance in the other point, namely that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of a noncognizable offence like the offence under S.288 on a report by a Police Officer. Under S.186(1) of the Travancore Criminal Procedure Code (S.190(1) of Act V of 1898) any magistrate may take cognizance of any offence (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence or (b) upon a report in writing of such facts made by any police officer. Cl. (b) adopts the language of S.190(1)(b) of Act V of 1898 as amended in 1923. There is almost consensus of judicial opinion that after that amendment a criminal court could take cognizance of even a non cognizable offence upon a police report. See Sohinis Criminal Procedure Code (14th Edn.) p. 359 and B.B. Mitras Commentaries (11th Edn.), Vol. 1, pp. 546 and 547.