SATYENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973 (in short, "the Code"). It is directed against the judgment and order dated 2.2.1998 passed by Shri Subash Kumar Singh,10th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rohtas (Sasaram) in Cr. Appeal No. 227 of 1998 dismissing the same. This appeal was directed against the judgment and order dated 30.9.196 passed by Shri Prem Kumar Ojha, Judicial Magistrate, Second Class, Sasaram (Rohtas) in Tr. No. 376/93, G.R. No. 1072/90 whereby and where nder the learned Magistrate while acquitting the petitioner of the charge under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code convicted him under Sections 448 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each under the aforesaid sections. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case, in short, is that on 13.7.1990 at about 10.30 a.m. while the informant. Ajay Shekhar (PW4), Block Development Officer. Sheosagar Block was performing his duties in his official chamber, the petitioner came there with a loan application for the purchase of a tractor and asked him to sign the same. PW 4, asked the petitioner firstly to get this application forwarded by the Block Agriculture Officer after which only he could entertain the same. This infuriated the petitioner who used abusive language against PW 4 and also put hinderance in discharge of his official duty. PW 4 submitted a written report (Ext. 4) to the Police on the basis of which Sheosagar P.S. Case No. 82/ 90 under Sections 448. 353 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code was instituted. After completing the investigations the Police submitted the charge-sheet under the aforesaid sections.

(3.) In course of the trial seven PWs were examined in this case. Out of them PW 7 was declared hostile. The I.O. of this case has not been examined. On behalf of the petitioner it has been submitted that there is a total lack of objective evidence to prove the charges against the petitioner. There is nothing in the evidence of PW 4 to show the actually which abusive words were used against him by the petitioner which were provocative in nature endangering the peace. Hence no case under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code has been made out against the petitioner. The actual words alleged to be used by the petitioner have also not been disclosed by the PW 5. the only other eye-witness of the alleged occurrence. So far as PW 6 is concerned the reached near the. chamber of PW 4 after the alleged occurrence was over. It has further been contended that the mandatory provisions of Sections 360 and 361 of the Code have not been complied with. No case under Sections 448 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code could be made out against the petitioner. On these grounds amongst others he has contended that the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court and upheld on appeal by impugned judgment be set aside and he be acquitted.