Decided on May 28,1952

STATE Respondents


- (1.)THIS is a reference by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baran, recommending that the conviction of the accused Shri Mustafa Khan, sub-court Inspector, under Section 228, I. P. C. , be set aside.
(2.)IT appears from the judgment of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Baran, that while a witness for the prosecution, namely Shri Narainial, Sub-Inspector, Police, was being examined in a criminal case, which the accused Shri Mustafa Khan was conducting on behalf of the prosecution, the accused complained to the court that the clerk of the court had without actually summoning the witnesses falsely entered the note of compliance. The Magistrate thereupon called for the register and found that the order had been properly complied with although rather late, upon this the accused retorted again and again in heat and anger that his complaint was true and did not stop even when asked by the court to do so. The accused even Interrupted the proceedings which were going on before the Magistrate. The accused did not admit the allegations which were made in the question put to him, and made a rather long statement justifying his action. Towards the end of his statement, the accused stated that whatever he had done was with a view to save expenses of the Government and not with a view to Insult or to interrupt any business of the court. He further said that if the complaint made against the clerk considered to be unjustified, he would riot make any complaint against the clerk in future. The learned Magistrate did not record any evidence, but on his own impressions he held that the attitude of the accused was insulting to the court, and that the accused intentionally interrupted the business of the court. The accused was, therefore, convicted under Section 228, IPC and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50/- only. He filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence, but later on finding that no appeal lay, he prayed to the learned Additional sessions Judge before whom his appeal was pending that it may be treated as revision, The learned Additional Sessions Judge treated the appeal as an application for revision, and holding that the order of the Magistrate could not be supported, has made this reference, and has recommended that the conviction and sentence of the accused be set aside.
(3.)I have heard Mr. Shah Alimuddin Ahmad who appears on behalf of the accused. He supports the reference and has argued that the accused could not be convicted only on the opinion of the Magistrate that the tone and temper and the heat and anger with which the accused objected were insulting to the Magistrate, and that his opinion that in spite of being repeatedly asked not to interfere in the business of the court, the action of the accused in strongly retorting with heat and anger and saying that he was right was not only insulting to the court taut also interrupted the proceedings before the court was not enough for the conviction of the accused.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.