Harris vs State

Maheswaran, J.—This revision is by the accused against the judgment of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kuzhithurai, convicting

him under S. 75 of the Madras City Police Act and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 25/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one

week.

The allegation was that when P.W.I was in her house on 15th June 1976 at about 3 p.m., the revision petitioner was plucking mangoes in the

trees adjoining the Vilai which also belonged to P.W.1, that the revision petitioner abused her, that she asked him not to abuse her, that again the

revision petitioner abused him in vulgar language and that when she was going to the hospital for some treatment, the revision petitioner came and

beat her on her back with his hand. P.W. 1 gave a report Ex.P-1 to the police and P.W.3, the Sub Inspector of Police, Kuzhithurai, registered a

case in Crime No. 854 of 1976 under S. 75 of the Madras City Police Act.

The learned Magistrate found that an offence under S. 75 of the Madras City Police Act has been made out and convicted and sentenced the

revision petitioner as stated above.

Mr. G. Krishnan, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended before me, that no offence under S. 75 of the Madras City Police Act has

been made out by the prosecution. P.W.3s evidence in chief-examination does not show that the offence has been committed ma public place. In

cross examination, she would state that the Decadence took place when she was going to the hospital, that the footpath is south of her house and it

is 50 feet, away and that the footpath leads from her house to the road. There is no clear evidence as to where exactly P.W.1 was beaten. One of

the important ingredients of S 75 of the Madras City Police Act is that the riotous or disorderly or indecent behaviour should be in a public place

or in any place of public amusement, or on board a passenger boat or vessel. In this case, there is no evidence of any riotous or disorderly or

indecent behavior .Except the evidence of P.W.1. That she was beaten there is no other evidence in this case. P.W.2, one of the witnesses

examined, has not supported the case of the prosecution and she has stated that she does not know anything about the occurrence. The other

witness, P.W.3 is the police officer. Mere beating of P.W.1 by the revision petitioner by itself would amount to proof of riotous or disorderly or

indecent behaviour many public place. In my view, no offence under S. 75 of the Madras City Police Act has been made out.

The revision case is allowed, the conviction and sentence are set aside and the revision petitioner is acquitted. The amount of fine, if any, paid,

will be refunded to the revision petitioner.