GIRIDHARI SAMANT SINHAR Vs. UDHABA CHARAN SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner filed a complaint before the Sub -divisional Magistrate, Khurda, complaining against the opposite party who happens to be the Assistant Settlement Officer. During an enquiry the opposite party is alleged to have abused a witness for the Petitioner as "Sala, you are telling lies. Speak the truth". The complainant protested whereupon he was himself abused in foul language. This was the subject -matter of the complaint filed by the Petitioner. The Sub -divisional Magistrate sent the petition to the Tahsildar -Magistrate for an enquiry, and that Officer, after examining eleven witnesses recommended that as a prima facie case under Section 504 I.P.C. had been made out against the accused he may be put on trial. On receipt of the report, the S.D.M. however, took a different view of the matter and observed that the use of the word "Sala" was not, in his opinion, meant to insult the witness but only to admonish him.

(2.) IT cannot be stated, as a proposition of law, that the word "Sala" is always used for the purpose of admonishing a person. The significance to be attached to the word would depend upon the circumstances, the relationship between the parties and the occasion on which it is used. While the word is ordinarily used to an abusive sense and not with a view to bring down the reputation, or to cast aspersion on the character of the person against whom it is used, to use it against a witness giving evidence in a case and to charge him with falsehood would rob it of much of its inoffensive character. But even after giving the maximum latitude to the user of the word, there is no justification for the view taken by the Sub -divisional Magistrate as he appears to have overlooked the complaint of the Petitioner who was addressed in very severe language. The accused is alleged to have threatened the Petitioner with shoe -beating if he did not leave the place. The Petitioner had certainly a right to be present when the enquiry was going on, and it cannot be said that when the opposite party threatened the Petitioner with shoe, beating he did so innocently. Whatever might be said of the use f the word "Sala" the threat administered to the Petitioner would easily have led to serious consequences but for the fact that the Petitioner had restrained himself. The opposite party who occupies a responsible position as a public servant cannot be permitted to allow his tongue to run away with him, and the least that should be expected of him is that he should use more restrained, if not courteous language to the parties and the witnesses who have the misfortune to appear before him. I think that in the circumstances of this case public justice requires that it should be heard and tried fairly and if any offence is disclosed the offender should be brought to book, irrespective of his position or office. I do not therefore agree with the light hearted manner in, which the Petitioner's complaint has been thrown out by the Courts below.