M A JALIL Vs. SAYED IQUBAL ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application in revision is directed against an order of a First Class magistrate of Cuttack convicting the petitioner under Section 500 I. P. C. and sentencing him to pay a fine of Re. 1 and in default to undergo S. I. till the rising of the Court. While admitting this application a Rule was also issued calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the sentence should not be enhanced.

(2.) THE petitioner is the Secretary of the Urdu Girls' M. E. School at Oriva Bazar at cuttack town. P. W. 5 Abcda Begum was working as an Assistant Teacher in that school. On 29-9-64 the petitioner in his capacity as the Secretary of the School issued an order (Ex. 4) to P. W. 5 calling upon her to explain (a) why she was talking to a young man inside the school premises on 25-9-64; (b) why she was divulging the school secrels to the Sub-Inspector of Schools. On 19-9-64 another order (Ex. 3) had also been issued to P. W. 5 alleging that she was found copying out a certain letter received from the Sub-Inspector of Schools and was thus guilty of official misconduct.

(3.) ON 18-12-64, a complaint petition was filed in the court of the S. D. M. , Cutlack by one Saycd Iqubal Mi (P. W. 4) brother-in-law of P. W. 5, Abeda Begum against the petitioner and Sm. Zaibunnisa, the Head-mistress of the School under Sections 500, 504 and 120 I. P. C. alleging inter alia that they defamed Abeda Begum. Admittedly Sayed Iqubal AH did not pray for the leave of the Court to file such complaint petition on behalf of Abeda Begum and no such leave was ever granted as required under the proviso to Section 198 Cr. P. C. This infirmity was however, not noticed by the learned Magistrate, but in due course he framed a charge only under Section 500 I. P. C. against the petitioner and Sm. Zaibunnisa, examined witnesses and found ultimately that no case had been made out against zaibunnisa and acquitted her. Regarding the petitioner he found that the allegation that P. W. 5 Abeda Begum copied out a letter received from the Sub Inspector of Schools was true and that as such the warning given in Ex. 3 was justified. He, however, held that the accusation made by the petitioner in Ex. 4 was not true and that the imputation made therein was not justified. He therefore convicted him Under Section 500 I. P. C. and sentenced him as stated above.