BATA BEHERA Vs. DEVENDRANATH BHOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition, in revision, against the appellate judgment of the Sessions Judge of Cuttack maintaining the conviction of the petitioner under Section 504 I. P. C. and Section 352 I. P. C. and the sentence of fine of Rs. 25/- passed on him by a Second Class Magistrate of Cuttack.

(2.) The facts as found by the two lower Courts are that on 23-9-56 at about 9 a.m. when the complainant was passing along the road near Jholasahi Girls' School in Cuttack town he had an altercation with the petitioner regarding the settlement of accounts in respect of some financial transactions between the two. It was alleged that during that altercation the petitioner got enraged and pulled away the wearing apparel of the complainant, tearing a major portion of it, thereby making him halt naked and also picked up two brickbats with a view to throw them at the complainant and further abused him in filthy language. Nothing untoward however happened as several persons prevented further quarrel. The complainant immediately went to Laibagh Police Station and lodged a station diary entry and subsequently filed a petition of complaint before the Sub-divisional Magistrate on 25-9-1956 on the basis of which a case was started against the petitioner.

(3.) The complainant is the Headclerk in the Certificate Department of Cuttack Collectorate. The petitioner is said to be a rich and influential man of Cuttack Town. There was some argument in the lower Court as to whether in view of the status of the parties mere abuse would suffice to attract the provisions of Section 504 I. P. C. The lower appellate court rightly observed that this question is somewhat academic because even if the charge under Section 352 I. P. C. succeeds a sentence of fine of Rs. 25/- would be quite adequate for that offence, I am inclined to agree with the learned lower court. The question as to whether mere abuse on the public road would amount to an offence under Section 504 I. P. C. would depend on several circumstances such as the respective status of the parties, the nature of the abuse and other factors. For the purpose of this case it is unnecessary to enter into elaborate discussion of this question and to examine the correctness of some decisions referred to by Mr. Mohanty.