SATRUGHANA BEHERA Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, Satrughana Behera and Kanhei Behera, have been convicted by a third class Magistrate under Rule 59 of the Municipal Bye-law. The Magistrate sentenced them each to pay a fine of Rs. 15 and directed that they should remove the obstruction within 15 days from the date of his order, failing which they would be liable to pay a daily fine of Rs. 2. An appeal against their conviction and sentence has been dismissed by the Additional District Magistrate, Cuttack.

(2.) The facts of the case are that on 30 December 1942, a notice (Ex.2) was issued on the petitioners (evidently under Section 196, Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act) stating that the petitioners had obstructed a sweeper's passage leading to the latrine of Sri Mohan Prusty, resulting in the latrine being left unattended and causing nuisance and affecting the health of the inmates of the house and neighbouring public, and so had committed an offence under bye-law 59, and directing them to remove the obstruction within two days, failing which legal action would be taken. The obstruction was not removed, and the prosecution and conviction followed, the conviction being on 5 May 1943.

(3.) The first point taken for the petitioners is that they had been already tried and convicted for the offence in question, and sounder Section 403, Criminal P.C., could not be again tried and convicted. What happened -was that Mohan Prusty, the owner of the house of which the latrine could not be cleaned, lodged an independent complaint on 6 January 1943, and for that the petitioners were tried by a first class Magistrate, and on 8 March 1943, they were convicted under Section 341, Indian Penal Code, for wrongfully restraining the sweeper, and sentenced to pay fines of Rs. 10 each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one week each. It is stated that there was no appeal against this conviction, and sentence.