DILIP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

(2.) The allegations in the F.I.R. were that the Petitioner was trying to get construction made on public land. His principal contention was that by getting construction made on public land, no offence under Section 3 or 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, (hereinafter Public Property Act), is disclosed. We are not in agreement with this submission. Section 3 consists of two parts. The first part 3(1) refers to any mischief by doing any act in respect of any public property, other than public property of the nature referred to in Sub-section (2), which shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine. Mischief has been defined in Section 2(a) of the Public Property Act. The definition of "mischief is to have the same meaning as given under Section 425 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). Section 425 of Indian Penal Code defines mischief thus:

(3.) The second error in the counsel's argument is that he has mixed up two provisions as Section 3(2), which provides higher punishment i.e. punishment up to 5 years and fine but a minimum punishment of 6 months, speaks of committing mischief by doing any act in respect of a particular class of public property being: