JATINDRA NATH Vs. MANINDRA NATH- COMPLAINANT-OPPOSITE PARTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS rule has been obtained by an accused person who has been convicted for having committed an offence punishable under Section 290, Penal Code, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

(2.) THE facts alleged against the petitioner briefly are as follows : He is the tenant in respect of certain premises in Nabadwip. In these premises live a number of young women of immoral character. Men of bad character come to the house and disturb the neighbourhood by singing obscene songs and having drunken brawls. The occupants of the premises also throw dirty rags on the road and near the premises occupied by the neighbours. The defence taken is that the petitioner is the Secretary of an institution known as the Nan O Shiahu Ashram, The Society carried on philanthropic work by rescuing unfortunate women and giving them protection in the premises where it is alleged by the prosecution this public nuisance has been committed. The petitioner is the Secretary of this Association and he lives at Calcutta. He goes to the house occasionally. He denies that there was any public nuisance committed and in any event he states that he cannot be made liable for committing any public nuisance upon the evidence adduced.

(3.) THE trial Magistrate convicted the petitioner and this conviction has been upheld by the Sessions Judge of Nadia. Against the order of conviction and sentence the present rule has been obtained. Learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner contends firstly that the evidence does not establish that any public nuisance has been committed and secondly that the commission of such public nuisance cannot be brought home to the petitioner inasmuch as he does not reside in the aforesaid premises but is an occasional visitor therein. Lastly, he argues that the petitioner was not properly examined in accordance with the provisions of Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code, inasmuch as the salient points alleged against him were not brought to his notice.