Dandapani Panigrahi vs The State and Another

Narasimham, C.J.—This is a petition in revision against the judgment of a First Class Magistrate, Chatrapur, convicting the Petitioner u/s 174 I.P.C. and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 20/- on a finding that the Petitioner wilfully failed to appear before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chatrapur on 30-5-1959 though properly summoned to appear before him on that date, and that he was consequently liable under the aforesaid section.

The Petitioner pleaded guilty when the substance of the accusation was read out to him. But this plea must be construed only as an admission of the facts alleged and it is undoubtedly open to him in this revision petition to challenge the legality of his conviction. He admitted that though properly summoned he failed to appear before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chatrapur at 10.39 a.m. on the date fixed viz. 30-9-1959. His explanation was that he went to leave court to answer an urgent call of nature. He further stated in his examination u/s 342 Code of Criminal Procedure that at 4 p.m. on that day he filed a petition mentioning this fact. The learned trying Magistrate observed that even if the Petitioner felt an urgent call of nature he ought to have posted some one in the court so as to keep the court informed of the reason for his absence. The learned trying Magistrate has not clearly stated as to whether he accepted as true the explanation given by the Petitioner for his absence.

Section 174 I.P.C. penalises only wilful or intentional omission to attend at a particular place or time after being duly summoned. There is undoubtedly sufficient authority to support the view that the expression "intentional" occurring in that section conveys the idea that the disobedience must be wilful. If a person is prevented from attending court on a particular day or at the particular time fixed, on account of illness which incapacitates him from leaving his place or on account of his being summoned to attend at another place by another authority whom he cannot disobey, his non-attendance cannot be said to be "intentional" see the decisions reported in In Re: Muhammad Muzaffar Ali, and AIR 1923 Lah 163. Similarly, his mere omission to give previous intimation to the court about his inability to attend at the time fixed may not by itself be decisive, because there may be some sudden disability which could not be anticipated, but such an omission is somewhat relevant on the question as to whether the explanation given by the accused person for his non attendance can be believed or not.

It is true that in the present case the learned Magistrate has not given a clear finding as to whether the explanation given by the Petitioner was acceptable or not. But the very fact that the Petitioner did not attend court immediately after answering call of nature and that he filed a petition only at 4 p. m. on that day leads one to infer that his explanation for non-attendance was probably not true. If the Petitioner had really appeared in Court on that day, at the time fixed, in answer to the summons, but was compelled to leave the court suddenly on account of an urgent call of nature he would have appeared before the Court immediately after answering the call of nature and would not have waited till 4 p. m. to file his petition.

I am not therefore prepared to accept, as correct the explanation given by the Petitioner for his non-attendance on the date fixed. The conviction u/s 174 I.P.C. must stand. But the offence is a trivial one for which a nominal sentence would suffice. While therefore maintaining the conviction of the Petitioner u/s 174 I.P.C. I would reduce the sentence of fine from Rs. 20/- to Rs. 5/- (Rupees five) only; in default of which he shall undergo imprisonment for one week.

Subject to this modification in the sentence, the revision petition is dismissed.