AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
I. David Christian, J.—This Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners accused challenging the order passed by the learned Principal
Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in C.A.No.58 of 1998.
As against the conviction judgment for the offences under Sections 71(16) and 75(1)(c) of Chennai City Police Act rendered by the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.1II in S.T.C.No.2581 of 1994, the petitioners accused preferred appeal in C.A.58 of 1998 on the file of Principal Sessions
Judge, coimbatore and later by the impugned order dated 14.9.1999, confirmed the judgment passed by the lower court and dismissed the appeal.
Therefore the petitioner/accused have preferred the criminal revision.
The brief facts of the case is that the Sub Inspector of Police has filed a charge sheet against the accused 1 and 2 alleging that on 10.12.1994 at
about 9.00 p.m. in front of Gandhipuram, Thiruyallavur bus stand, the accused 1 and 2 attempted to paste a wall-poster on a wall situated
opposite to the bus stand and at that time, a person who was standing there questioned them as to why they were disfiguring the wall, for Which
the accused replied and abused him and thereby they have committed the offences punishable u/s 71(16) and 75(1)(c) of Chennai City Police Act.
The prosecution examined PW. 1 one constable attached to the complainant station and his evidence disclosed that on the date and time of
occurrence, these two accused were trying to paste a wall- poster on a wall in front of Gandhipuram bus stand. It is also stated by PW. 1 that
when a person who was standing there questioned the acts of the accused they abused him. This is the only evidence that is available against the
accused. It is immaterial that the accused subsequently filed a petition admitting the offence. Because once accused had denied the offence, it is for
the prosecution to adduce evidence and place sufficient materials to prove that the necessary ingredients to constitute the offences have been
brought on record. P.W.1 is the only witness examined on the side of the prosecution and it is only to the effect that on the night of 10.12.1994
these accused were trying to paste a poster on a wall situated opposite of the bus stand. There is no evidence to show that the accused were trying
to paste a wall poster on a wall belonging to public or private person. Pasting of a wall poster on a private property will also amount to an offence
u/s 71(16) of the Act provided permission of the owner of the private property is not obtained. There is no evidence through. PWl as to whether
the wall on which the accused tried to paste the poster belongs to the public or the State or to a private person. There is also no evidence to show
that the accused were trying to paste the wall poster without taking the permission of the owner. Therefore the necessary ingredient to constitute on
offence u/s 71(16) of the Act has not been proved and therefore the conviction of the accused for the said offence can not be sustained.
The petitioners/accused have also been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 75 of Chennai City Police Act. Section 75(l)(c) with which the
accused have been charged reads as under: ""75.Penalty for drunkenness or riotous or indecent behaviour in public place: -
(1)Whoever, in any public place, office Station-house of courts, or in any place of public amusement of on board any passenger boat or vessel, is:-
(a)........
(b).......
(c) found behaving in a violent or boisterous or disorderly or riotous or indecent manner or using any threatening, abusive or insulting words which
causes or it likely to cause a breach of public peace, shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment not exceeding six months or fine not exceeding
one thousand rupees.
A reading of the above Section shows that the prosecution must prove that the accused behaved in a drunken, riotous or indecent manner and
that was in a public place. Moreover, the prosecution must further prove that the accused by using any threatening, abusive or insulting words
caused breach of public peace or its livelihood. There is absolutely no evidence to show that the words used by the accused were either abusive in
nature or threatening or insulting. There is also no evidence that the accused behaved in a violent or boisterous or disorderly or indecent manner or
used insulting words which resulted in breach of public peace. So even assuming for a moment the evidence of PW1, is true the necessary
ingredients to constitute the offences under Sections 71(16) and 75(1)(c) have not been made out and therefore the conviction by the learned
Judicial Magistrate No. III and which has been confirmed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore cannot be sustained.
In the result, the Crl. Revision Case No. 1454 of 1999 is allowed. The petitioner/Accused are found not guilty and acquitted of the charges.