STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. KURBANALI AKBARALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference made to this Court by the learned Sessions Judge, Broach, for quashing the conviction of the two accused persons who have been convicted by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Broach of offences under Section 24(4), Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act. Accused No. 1 has also been convicted of the offence under Section 504, I.P.C.

(2.) The complainant in this case is a tenant of the ground floor of a building of which accused No. 2 is the landlady. Accused No. 1 is the husband of accused No. 2. It was the ease of the complainant that the two accused had cut off the electric connection of the complainant's premises on 16-6-1952 and the water supply of the complainant's premises on 17-6-1952. When on 18-6-1952 the complainant went to protest, accused No. 1 abused him. The defence which the accused persons adopted at the trial was that the complainant never had got either water connection or electric connection.

(3.) The learned trial Magistrate went to the place and found that there were in the complainant's premises fittings which showed that there must have been formerly both a water-connection as well as electricity connection. Inasmuch as there was no water connection and the electricity connection at the time of the trial and inasmuch as the learned trial Magistrate found that the two connections were cut off by accused No. 2 occupying the complainant's storey he convicted the two accused persons. The accused persons went to the learned Sessions Judge in revision, whereupon he came to the conclusion that there was sufficient cause for the accused to justify the cutting off of the water connection and the electricity connection. It appears that the southern wall of the building of accused No. 2 needed repairs. The learned Judge held that the Municipality had given, notice to accused No. 2 to repair the building and inasmuch as it was necessary to cut off the water connection and the electricity connection for repairing the wall, the learned Judge held that the prosecution had failed to prove that accused No. 2 had not got sufficient cause for cutting off of the water connection and the electricity connection. So far as accused No. 1 is concerned, he said that in any case there was no evidence that accused No. 1 had abetted accused No. 2 in the commission of the offence. Finally he held that the abuse which was given by accused No. 1 was an ordinary abuse which did not fall within the purview of Section 504, I.P.C.