SMT. KAUSHALYA RANI Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner was convicted under Section 447 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code by the Additional District Magistrate. A fine of Rs. 200/ -was imposed for the first offence; in default she was to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks. A fine of Rs. 200/ - was also imposed for the second offence and in default she was to undergo simple imprisonment for a month. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge upheld the convictions as well as the sentences.

(2.) THE Petitioner was living in her own house No. 23/8, Shakti Nagar, at the material time on the first floor. The ground -floor was in occupation of Dr. K. C. Jain a medical practitioner and an Honorary Magistrate, who had taken it on rent, the agreed rate of rent being Rs. 315/ - per month. The relations between the Petitioner and her tenant became strained, with the result that civil and criminal litigation followed. It is not disputed that at the time when the incident took place on 12th May 1959, the tenant owed a large amount as arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 3,150/ -of which payment was not being made by him on one ground or the other. On 12th May 1959, Dr. Jain and Smt. Om Prabha Jain, his wife, who is an M. L. A. in the Punjab, had invited S. Partap Singh Kairon, Chief Minister of Punjab and certain other guests to lunch at their residence. The offences under the aforesaid sections are alleged to have been committed on that occasion. Smt. Om Prabha Jain gave a complaint in writing to Shri Nakul Sain, Assistant Sub -Inspector, who had reached the spot soon after the incident. He made a report in the daily diary of the Thana on 12th of May 1959. Exhibit DB/1 being the copy. No action was, however, taken by the police on this report. Dr. Jain made a complaint to the Deputy Inspector General of Police on 14th May, 1959 vide Exhibit DW 5/B The Deputy Inspector General of Police ordered Shri R. S. Dabari, Deputy Superintendent of Police, to investigate the complaint. He registered a first information report No. 224 dated 16th May 1959, Exhibit PA/1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police reported that the case deserved to be cancelled. That report was accepted by Shri R. N. Singh, Sub -Divisional Magistrate. On 16th May 1959. Dr. Jain filed a complaint in the Court of the (sic)aqa Magistrate. This was sent to Shri C. L. Anand, Additional District Magistrate, for disposal, who found the Petitioner guilty and sentenced her as stated above under the aforesaid sections

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that according to the finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge the Petitioner did not utter any abuses of the nature alleged by the complainant. Her conviction has been sustained on the conclusion that after entering the compound of the house she proceeded to proclaim in the presence of the guests about the complainant not paying the rent due to her. It is pointed out that there is no justification tor the learned Judge saying, that she said some other unpalatable things also because he had already found earlier that whatever she said was about non -payment of rent which was due to her; nor is there any credible evidence about her proclaiming about non -payment of rent. There is force in this submission. The only witness who could be called disinterested is P. W. 2 Maharaj. Hari Singh Nihal Singh, a member of Parliament. According to him, the Petitioner had abused the complainant and his wife and she was saying that she would have removed him from Doctorship and his wife from M. L, A, ship. It is significant that Dr. Jain in his complaint to. the Deputy Inspector General of Police had made no such allegation, nor was it stated by him that she had proclaimed to his guests about this default in payment of rent. No mention was made by this witness about that matter, e. g. statement regarding non -payment of rent. It is pointed out that the other P. W. s, namely P. W. 3 Mohan Singh Bajaj was an employee of the complainant and could not be regarded as distinterested. P. W. 4 was Smt. Om Prabha Jain, the wife of the complainant. P. W. 5 Dr. Satish Parkash did not say anything about the matter. The testimony of P. W. 6 Kalyan Singh and P. W. 7 Sada Nand Head Constable had been discarded by the Additional Sessions Judge for the reasons stated in paragraph 9 of his judgment inasmuch as they had made an obvious attempt to improve upon their previous statements. The complainant and his wife were interested and there had been a good deal of bad blood between them and the Petitioner, Thus there was no evidence on which the learned Additional Sessions Judge could find that the Petitioner had proclaimed or stated in disparaging terms the fact of the Petitioner not having paid the rent due to her, and I find it difficult to uphold the conclusion of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and that the Petitioner made any such statements even if it be assumed that she trespassed into the compound up to the verandah when the guests of Dr. Jain were there.