Smt. Sita Devi vs State

P.N. Bakshi, J.—A complaint has been filed by Sri Chandra She-khar, 1st Judicial Magistrate, Ballia on 25-12-1978 against the Applicant for an offence u/s 4/7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. The allegations in the complaint are that at about 10. 30 A.M. on the morning of 25-12-1978, a drain lying between the houses of the complainant and the house of the accused, was being cleaned. The wife of the landlord of the adjoining house came out and began to abuse the complainant and his wife by saying "Kalian Kay Chamar aur Chamarin aakar pados mein bas gayay hein jo barabar ganda kartay rehtay hein aur apnay ko teen paisey ki naukari karkay ham logan ki jatiki barabari karna chahetay hein." It was also mentioned in the report that the previous Munsif-Magistrate Sri Sant Lal Ram was also living in the same house and that the husband of the accused who was a Brahman by caste, has got his goods thrown out of the house, saying that no Chamar would be allowed to stay in his house. On these allegations the instant complaint has been filed and the accused summoned.

An application for exemption was filed before the Magistrate concerned on the ground that Shrimati Sita Devi was a pardanashin lady. But that application has been rejected and she has been ordered to appear failing which warrant of arrest would be issued against her. Aggrieved thereby the instant application has been filed u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure.

I have heard learned Counsel for the Applicant and also on behalf of the opposite party. I have also carefully perused Sections 4 and 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. Section 4 deals with the punishment for enforcing social disabilities. There is no allegation in the complaint on the basis of which the provisions of Section 4 can be attracted. Counsel for the State has argued that Section 7(d) of the Act might apply in the instant case, which runs as follows: Punishment for other offences arising out of untouchability:

Whoever-

(d) insults or attempts to insult, on the ground of ''untouchability'' a member of a Scheduled Caste shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term of not less than one month and not more than six months and also with fine which shall not be less than one hundred rupees and not more than five hundred rupees.

It is not the case of the complainant that the accused insulted him on the ground of untouchability. All that the accused said was to call the complainant a Chamar. It may be argued that the use of this expression in the context in which it was done, was defamatory to the complainant. But I fail to understand, how it can amount to an offence u/s 7(1)(d) of the Act on the ground of untouchability. The Applicant was undoubtedly a Chamar by caste and the coming into force of the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 would not change his caste. Merely calling a Brahmin a Brahman, a Chhatri a Chhatri and Chamar a Chamar is not by itself an offence. The offence is only committed when it falls within the four corners of Section 7. In my opinion the allegations as they existed will not make out a case u/s 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955.

To my mind ''untouchability'' when translated in Hindi means ''Achhoot''. That word may bring within its orbit an element of disgrace and insult. But the use of the word "Chamar", which signifies a particular caste or sect, cannot be understood to mean a synonym for ''Achhoot''.

In my view therefore, this application u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure is hereby allowed and the prosecution of the Applicant u/s 4/7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act is hereby quashed.