DHIRAJ SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under section 486 of the Cr. P. C. against an order of the learned Sessions Judge, Kathua, dated 27th February, 1973 holding the appellant guilty under Section 228 of the R. P. C. read with Section 480 of the Cr. P. C.

(2.) THE facts of the case which culminated in the conviction of the appellant under the aforesaid Section are as follows: - It appears that the learned Sessions Judge, Kathua was hearing the Criminal case Ram Kaur Versus Sant Singh under Section 494 of the R. P. C on 27th February, 1973 at about 2 P. M. in his Courtroom. The parties were accompanied by their sympathisers. During the course of the proceedings in the aforesaid case the appellant is alleged to have abused one, Ram Singh, in the open Court within the hearing of the Presiding Officer of the Court by calling him "Dalla" (Dalla). This conduct of the appellant is stated to have been a cause of interruption in the judicial proceedings and an insult to the court. The learned Sessions Judge accordingly initiated proceedings under Section 480 Cr. P C. against the appellant and recorded his statement in which the appellant pleaded guilty but offered apology. Considering that the act of the appellant in calling Ram Singh Dalla amounted to an offence under section 228 R. P. C. the learned Sessions Judge convicted him to a fine of Rs 50/ -: Even though the order under appeal mentioned section 480 of the Cr. P. C. only under which the appellant has been convicted yet from the substance of the order the conviction can be referable only to an offence under Section 228 of the R. P C. tried under Section 480 of the Cr. P. C. Being dissatisfied with the legality and the correctness of the order of the learned Sessions Judge the present appeal has been filed in this Court as stated earlier, under section 486 Cr. P. C.

(3.) MR . InderJit Gupta, appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted before me that the conviction of the appellant in the circumstances of the case was legally erroneous as the appellant could not be said to have committed an offence under Section 228 R. P. C. While elaborating his argument he has contended that there was no intentional insult offered by the appellant which could possibly be made a basis for his conviction under Section 228 of the R. P. C, read with Section 480 of the Cr. P. C. In support of his argument he has relied upon two judgments, one of the Calcutta High Court in Sahasrangshu Kanti Acharya v. The State, reported as A. I, R, 1968 Calcutta, 249 and the other of the Patna High Court in Rameshwar Mandal v. The State, reported at A. I. R. 1960 Patna 309. I will discuss these cases after I express my own view on the question.