YUSUF DEHLAVI Vs. SYED LAIK AHMAD HASHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision with a prayer that the proceedings in the Court of Mr. N N. Chakravarty. Munsif-Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, in suit No. 10C/1954/T85/54 may be stayed and after hearing the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Officer dated 22-1-1954 be set aside find the proceedings against the petitioners be quashed. A complaint was filed by the opposite party Doctor Syed Laik Ahmad Hashmi stating that the paper known as Shama, a Urdu periodical, ran a competition known as crossword competition and that the opposite party had entered the competition, namely entry No. 41 in October and had sent twelve solutions. Out of these, six were in his own name and six in the name, of his son. His allegation further is that a correct solution was sent by his son and that in spite of this his son was not awarded the first prize. Hence the petitioners have cheated the complainant. On behalf of the petitioners, however, it is stated that the son of the complainant got a prize because he had committed two mistakes in the solution he had offered and thus he was not entitled to the first prize. On these facts it is stated on behalf of the petitioners that no offence has been made out and the proceedings should be quashed.

(2.) It appears that those who enter into this competition have to abide by certain conditions, one of which is that the decision of the editor of Shama is final and legally binding and that the editor will not enter into any correspondence whatsoever with the competitors. The complainant had, of course, written to the editor of Shama drawing his attention to the fact that his soil should have been given first prize as he had offered the correct solution. It is said that no reply came from the editor of Shama or any member of the staff of Shama. The complainant also contacted some of his friends in Delhi so that they might contact the editor or the staff of this paper, but even this produced no useful result. So far as the petitioners are concerned, they were not bound to enter into any correspondence in view of the condition that was imposed upon the competitors. Hence it cannot be said that because the editor of Shama, namely, petitioner 1, or any of the other petitioners did not enter into any correspondence with the opposite party, there was any mala fide on their part. So far as the offence itself is concerned I fail to see what offence has been committed. Here was a competition and it is alleged on behalf of the editor that the son of the complainant had committed two mistakes. There was no deception of any kind practised on the opposite party or on his son. It is really a case of dispute as to whether the son of the opposite party had put in a correct solution or not. This fact is disputed by the editor of Shama and the other petitioners in other words, there is no 'mens rea' at all in this case. At this stage I would refer to a decision of this Court in 'Mohammad Ainul Haque v. MS. Yusuf, Cri Revn. No. 476 of 1953, D.00 9-3-1954 (Pat) (A). This case is very similar in principle to the case that we are at present hearing. There also the same allegations were made that a correct solution was offered and in spite of, that first prize was not given. It was observed by his Lordship, Ramaswami. J., that upon the facts alleged no criminal liability of any kind arose. With great respect, I entirely agree with the observation of my learned brother in that case. There is absolutely nothing on the record to show that there was any criminal intention on the part of the editor, and that being so the order of the Court below dated 22-1-1954. taking cognizance of the case and summoning the petitioners to stand their trial under Section 420, Penal Code, must be set aside and all proceedings subsequent thereto must be quashed. The application is accordingly allowed.

(3.) I agree.