SAMBHUNATH PUHAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Upon hearing Mr. M.N. Das for the petitioner and Mr. A. Rath, the learned Additional Standing Counsel, I find, for the reasons to follow, that the order of conviction recorded against the petitioner by Mr. K.S. Misra, Sessions Judge, Balasore, under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the CodeT), sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 1001-and in default of payment thereof, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days, of which the petitioner had no notice, as the charge framed against him in the trial court was only under Section 324 of the Code for which he stood convicted, cannot be sustained in law and has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner, as rightly contended on behalf of the petitioner and fairly submitted on behalf of the State.

(2.) The case against the petitioner was that on the 15th June, 1979, he entered Harihat house, abused the first-informant (P.W. 1) and his companions in filthy languages and assaulted two of them, namely, P.Ws. 1 and 2. The appellate court held that the case under Section 324 of the Code had not been established and while setting aside the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court for that charge, convicted the petitioner under Section 504 of the Code.

(3.) In order to attract Section 504 of the Code, the accused person must have intentionally insulted thereby giving provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation would cause him to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The appellate court did not even keep on record as to what language had been used by the petitioner. Its judgment does not indicate that there was evidence that the words uttered by the petitioner had caused any provocation. On the other hand, the finding of the learned appellate Judge is that there had been a clasb and an Texchange of wordsT between the parties. Without referring to the evidence and scanning it and without proper application of mind, the learned Judge recorded the impugned order by coming to an abrupt and unfounded conclusion that the petitioner had Tinsulted P.Ws. 1 and 2 and their companions and holding that the commission of an offence punishable under Section 504 of the Code had been established.