Sing aravelu vs State

K.M. Natarajan, J.—This revision is directed against the judgment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Arcot at Cuddalore in Criminal Appeal No. 158 of 1980, confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Cuddalore passed against the Petitioner u/s 75 of the Madras City Police Act to pay a fine of Rs. 50, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one week.

P.W.1, the S.I. of Police, Kurinchipadi filed a charge-sheet u/s 75 of the Madras City Police Act alleging that on 10th June, 1980 at about 7:40 P.M. the revision Petitioner was using vulgar language and behave indecently in a public place and caused inconvenience to the public and the traffic. Except P.W.1 no other witness was examined on the side of the prosecution.

When the accused was examined u/s 313, Cr. P.C. he had stated that this case has been foisted on him and that P.W.1 deposed falsely on account of enmity and examined the witnesses, D. Ws.1 and 2, who are father and son respectively in support of his defence. Their evidence is to the effect that on the date of the occurrence at 5 P.M. P.W.1 came to the village for enquiry in connection with a dispute between them, that P.W.1 beat D.W.2 with an umbrella, that the accused, who is the caste headman (nattammaikarar) of the village, condemned the action of P.W.1 and that P.W.1 was aggrieved of the same and threatened to take action against him.

Both the Courts below have accepted the evidence of P.W.1, the S.I. of Police and disbelieved the evidence of D. Ws.1 and 2, convicted and sentenced him as stated supra.

Learned Counsel for the revision Petitioner, Mr. T.S. Arunachalam, contended that the S.I. of Police, Kurinchipadi, who himself gave the first information report in this case, investigated the case and filed the charge-sheet and deposed before the trial Court. Learned Counsel relied on the decision reported in Bhagwan Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan, . and contended that the above infirmity arising from investigation is bound to reflect on the credibility of the prosecution case, that the prosecution did not examine another witness cited in the charge-sheet in support of the prosecution without assigning any reason, that both the Courts below have failed to see that merely behaving indecently or using abusive language will not amount to an offence punishable u/s 15(sic) of the Madras City Police Act, and abusive or insulting words or behaving indecently, which causes or likely to cause a breach of public peace alone constitutes an offence under the said provision and that the evidence of D. Ws.1 and 2 was not given due consideration by the Courts below which led to a gross miscarriage of Justice.

After a careful consideration of the judgment of both the Courts below, I find much force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the revision Petitioner. As observed by the Supreme Court P.W.1, the complainant himself could not be an investigating officer and in any event, it is an infirmity which is bound to reflect on the credibility of the prosecution case and the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused. Though the occurrence took place in a busy locality, no independent witness was cited and examined and even the one witness cited in the charge-sheet was not examined and there is absolutely no explanation whatsoever on the side of the prosecution for his non-examination.

Further, both the courts below have failed to apply their mind to the main ingredients of the offence u/s 75 of the Madras City Polity Act, viz., indecent behaviour or using abusive words, which would cause or is likely to cause breach of peace. P.W.1 also did not speak about the revision Petitioner causing breach of peace in his evidence. Both the courts below have failed to give due weight to the evidence of D. Ws.1 and 2 which is natural, cogent and convincing. I am of the view that the failure to consider the several vital circumstances by the courts below resulted in the serious miscarriage of justice calling for my interference in this revision. Further the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not capable of sustaining the conviction of the revision Petitioner. Since the prosecution case against the revision Petitioner cannot be said to be free from reasonable doubt, he should be acquitted of the offence charged against him.

In the result, the revision is allowed, the conviction and sentence recorded against the revision Petitioner are not aside and he is acquitted of the offence u/s 75 of the Madras City Police Act. The fine amount, if any, paid is ordered to be refunded to him.