P R GOPALA PILLAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused is the revision petitioner. THE charge against him was under S. 170 IPC. He was prosecuted for having pretended himself to be a Police Head Constable at about 7 p. m. on 26101971 in front of Toshiba anand Factory, and so pretending stopped pw. 6 who was going along the road with a cycle belonging to pw. 3, and detaining him and the cycle demanded from him a sum of Rs. 2/- to release the cycle. THE trial court found him guilty under S. 170 IPC. , and sentenced him under thereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. An appeal filed by the revision' petitioner was dismissed.

(2.) IN this revision, the argument of Sri. T. K. Venugopalan, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, is two fold viz. , (1) the prosecution on its own showing has failed to establish that the accused while pretending to bold the office of Police Head constable, in such assumed character did, or attempted to do, any act under the colour of such office to attract S. 170 IPC. ; and (2) the courts below have failed to note the significance of the admission of pw. 7, the Head Constable who recorded Ext. P1 F. I. statement, that it contained not only what pw. 6, the informant told him, but also the information he gathered by questioning the accused.

(3.) THE State Prosecutor points out that in any event, the act of arrest of pw. 6 by the accused under the pretended authority of the police officer would fall within the mischief of S. 170 of the Penal Code. THEre is force in this contention, but considering the fact that the accused was not in uniform, whether pw. 6 could have taken it for granted that the accused was really a police officer appears to be doubtful. On this point, what has been spoken to by pw. 6 has not been corroborated by the evidence of any other witness.