EMPEROR Vs. TARAK DAS GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been convicted of an offence under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to suffer three months simple imprisonment. The main facts are that he sent by post to the complainant, an English nurse, a letter containing indecent overtures and suggesting that the complainant should take certain action in order to show whether she accepted the terms mentioned in this letter. The complainant went to the police, and in consequence of what they did, the accused was found to be the person who had sent the letter. He did not dispute this at the trial. The letter is described by the Magistrate as containing the most lewd and filthy suggestions and showing a wholly vicious and depraved mentality of the writer. In the circumstances, we entirely agree with the Magistrate that an inference arises that the accused intended to insult the modesty of the complainant, who is an unmarried woman, who had no previous acquaintance with the accused, and was not of a loose character.

(2.) The only point of substance that has been urged by Mr. Sopher for the petitioner is that the case does not come under the words "exhibits any object" contained in Section 509, which is the part of the section on which the conviction rests. No doubt, the word exhibit" does ordinarily express the idea of actually showing a thing to a person. On the other hand such showing need not be immediate. It was admitted by Mr. Sopher that exhibit was practically equivalent to the word expose, and a thing can be exhibited or exposed to a person, although at first it may be wrapped in something which prevents that person from actually seeing the object contained in the wrapper. Thus it has been held in England that the words "exposed for sale," contained in Section 6 of the Margarine Act, 1887 are not limited to such an exposure as would enable purchasers to see the margarine itself, but would cover the case of margarine which is wrapped in paper so as to be invisible to the purchaser : Wheat V/s. Brown [1892] 1 Q.B. 418. In the present case, the accused did not himself go to the complainant and show her the letter, but he employed the agency of the post office for the purpose of securing its receipt by her. The natural result of his posting the letter would be its receipt by the addressee and her opening the envelope and seeing its contents. In my opinion, the fact that the accused used, these means for letting the complainant seethe letter, instead of himself taking it and showing it to her, is immaterial. The maxim qui facit per alium facit per se is one entirely applicable to the present circumstances; and the, mete fact that the letter was in a closed envelope before it reached the complainant, and that the accused did not himself tear open that envelope, but that this was done by the complainant, does not prevent it being a case falling within the meaning of the words "exhibits any object." Therefore, I think the view taken by the Presidency Magistrate is quite correct, and I entirely agree with the very clear reasoning contained in his judgment.

(3.) We are asked to say that the sentence passed upon the accused is excessive, but the act was one of a disgusting nature, and, in my opinion, fully deserves the sentence that has been passed upon the accused.