K.C. Agrawal, J. - (1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment of the First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Varanasi, dated 15 - -6 - -1973, dismissing the appeal filed by the applicant against his conviction under Section 228 IPC sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ -, in default, to undergo three weeks' R. I.
(2.) IT appears that on 26 -8 -1972, when Sri R. S. Rastogi, Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Varanasi (North) was holding the trial of one Shafiq Ahmad under Section 228 IPC, Raj Kishore. the applicant, appeared in the Court and uttered the following words : you are not fit to sit on this chair and Yeh Trial Zyadati Hai. The S.D.M. having realised that the words uttered by the applicant amounted to commission of an offence contemplated by Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code, directed him to be taken into custody for offering intentional insult. The applicant was, thereafter, called upon to give his statement with respect to the allegation that he had insulted the Court by stating that "you are not fit to sit on this chair and Yeh Trial Zyadati Hai". The applicant denied that he had uttered these words and said that he was not going to examine any witness in defence for the denial of having uttered those words - It, however, appears that the Court also recorded the statements of Sri Mohammad Wasim Ahmad and Sri Doodh Nath Singh, Advocates, who were present in the Court at the time when the applicant uttered the words imputed to him. These two Advocates deposed that the applicant had stated in their hearing and presence that the Court was not fit for sitting on the chair. The Court having found that the applicant had committed the offence under Section 228 IPC, convicted him under that section and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ -. Aggrieved by this judgment, the applicant preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge. The appeal was dismissed. Hence, this revision. Learned Counsel for the applicant urged that as the S.D.M. did not give any opportunity to cross -examine the two Advocates, whose statements were taken by the Court on 26 -8 -1972, therefore, the conviction of the applicant under Section 228 IPC was illegal. This argument had been advanced by the applicant before the Learned appellate Court as well. After examining the record, the Court below found that it appeared that the applicant himself had refused to avail of the opportunity of cross -examining the witnesses who had been examined by the Court on the aforesaid date. In coming to this conclusion, the Court below had taken into account the various circumstances which emerged from the record, namely, that as the applicant had even refused to sign the statement made under Section 342 Code of Criminal Procedure it was reasonable to presume that he must have refused to cross -examine the two Advocates, mentioned above. I do not have any reason to differ from the view taken by the Learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge. It appears that the applicant was not in a mood to cooperate with the S.D.M. in the proceedings started by him. His conduct in refusing to sign the statement under Section 342 Code of Criminal Procedure could legitimately lead one to the conclusion that he must have refused to cross -examine the two Advocates as well.
(3.) APART from the above, in my opinion, the Court was not even required to record the statements of the Advocates and could convict the applicant under Section 228 IPC even without recording their statements. In the instant case, even if one ignores and does not take into account the statements of the two Advocates, the conviction of the applicant under Section 228 IPC is capable of being sustained. Section 480 Code of Criminal Procedure prescribed the special procedure which is to be followed in certain cases. This section applies to a case covered by Section 228 IPC as well. It has been said in this section that if any offence is committed in the view or in the presence of any Civil, Criminal or Revenue Court, the Court may cause the offender to be detained in custody and, if it thinks fit, take cognizance of the offence and sentence the offender to fine not exceeding Rs. 200/ -. Accordingly, in the instant case, the conviction of the applicant cannot be set aside even if it be assumed that the submission made by the learned Counsel for the applicant about the refusal to permit the applicant to cross -examine the witnesses was correct.;