RAM CHANDRA NAYAK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner has been convicted under Section 504, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to; R.I. for 2 weeks. The prosecution case is that on 12 -8 -1963 at about 9.30 a.m. the B.D.G. of Soro (p.w.1) was working in his office. The Head Clerk (p.w.2) was putting up papers before him. The Petitioner in the company of 12 to 13 persons came to the office of p.w.1 and demanded from him why Hemendra Kar, a teacher in Tendapara P. School was transferred. P.w.1 referred him to the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti, who alone was competent to deal with the transfer of teachers Without heeding to the advice of p.w.1, the Petitioner took his seat on the chair of the Head Clerk without any permission. Then the Petitioner told the B.D.O. in a threatening tone that he was giving the last warning and if the latter did not give them a teacher of their liking, they would see what they could do. P.w.1 asked the Petitioner to wait outside. P.w.2 told the Petitioner that it was improper on his part to sit on his chair without prior permission and asked him to vacate it. The Petitioner vacated the chair but told p.w.2 that it was not his father's property, that it had been prepared with their money and that they had a right to do whatever they liked. Despite the request of the B.D.O., the Petitioner did not go out of the room. Apprehending trouble, the B.D.O. sent a peon to call the Thana Officer. Then alone the Petitioner and his followers left the office room and waited outside. The Thana Officer arrived at the spot. P.w.2 gave a written report (ext. 1) with the endorsement of p.w.1 thereon. The defence was that the Petitioner was falsely implicated due to party faction in the village.

(2.) THE Courts below, after discussion of the evidence, accepted the prosecution case as true in the manner set forth above. The finding has not been assailed by Mr. Kundu as being contrary to evidence. He, however, contended that on the finding no offence under Section 504, Indian Penal Code has been made out.

(3.) MR . Kundu contends that the words used by the Petitioner merely amount to a breach of good manners and no offence has been committed under Section 504, Indian Penal Code. According to him, the remarks were couched in uncultured language and were nothing more than a pompous show that the office chair was a social property. The remark at the worst amounted to vulgar abuse and could not be characterised as an insult. Reliance has been placed on a plethora of authorities some of which are Philip Rangel v. Emperor, A.I.R. 192 Bom 193, Nasir Khan v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1935 Pesh 122., Mohammed Ibrahim faracayar v. Ismail Maracayar, A.I.R. 1949 Mad 760 and Abraham v. State. : A.I.R. 1960 Ker 236