Grover, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner was convicted under Section 447 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code by the Additional District Magistrate. A fine of Rs. 200/ -was imposed for the first offence; in default she was to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks. A fine of Rs. 200/ - was also imposed for the second offence and in default she was to undergo simple imprisonment for a month. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge upheld the convictions as well as the sentences.
(2.) THE Petitioner was living in her own house No. 23/8, Shakti Nagar, at the material time on the first floor. The ground -floor was in occupation of Dr. K. C. Jain a medical practitioner and an Honorary Magistrate, who had taken it on rent, the agreed rate of rent being Rs. 315/ - per month. The relations between the Petitioner and her tenant became strained, with the result that civil and criminal litigation followed. It is not disputed that at the time when the incident took place on 12th May 1959, the tenant owed a large amount as arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 3,150/ -of which payment was not being made by him on one ground or the other. On 12th May 1959, Dr. Jain and Smt. Om Prabha Jain, his wife, who is an M. L. A. in the Punjab, had invited S. Partap Singh Kairon, Chief Minister of Punjab and certain other guests to lunch at their residence. The offences under the aforesaid sections are alleged to have been committed on that occasion. Smt. Om Prabha Jain gave a complaint in writing to Shri Nakul Sain, Assistant Sub -Inspector, who had reached the spot soon after the incident. He made a report in the daily diary of the Thana on 12th of May 1959. Exhibit DB/1 being the copy. No action was, however, taken by the police on this report. Dr. Jain made a complaint to the Deputy Inspector General of Police on 14th May, 1959 vide Exhibit DW 5/B The Deputy Inspector General of Police ordered Shri R. S. Dabari, Deputy Superintendent of Police, to investigate the complaint. He registered a first information report No. 224 dated 16th May 1959, Exhibit PA/1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police reported that the case deserved to be cancelled. That report was accepted by Shri R. N. Singh, Sub -Divisional Magistrate. On 16th May 1959. Dr. Jain filed a complaint in the Court of the (sic)aqa Magistrate. This was sent to Shri C. L. Anand, Additional District Magistrate, for disposal, who found the Petitioner guilty and sentenced her as stated above under the aforesaid sections In his complaint made on 14th May 1959 to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Dr. Jain said that about a year ago the Petitioner had expressed a desire that he should vacate the house as she wanted to sell the same but he refused to do so. Then she demanded a store room on the ground -floor from him for a fortnight for keeping her luggage. She was allowed to make use of the store room which she never vacated and started harassing the complainant and the members of his family. Dr. Jain further wrote as follows: ****; this lady is threatening and abasing and throwing dirty things on us from above. I have been reporting all this to P. S. Roshnara but she seems to be incorrigible. Now on the 12th day of May, we had invited Shri Partap Singh Kairon, Chief Minister, Punjab, to lunch in that house and a few M. P.s. wire also invited. On my request, S. H. O. Roshnara P. S. deputed a few constables also to control the traffic. This lady forcibly entered my house aid abused me in the presence of all to belittle me in their eyes. The police constables tried to check her entry but to no purpose. This has caused great annoyance. To sum up, she is proving a great nuisance and is trying to harass me and be(sic) me in the eves of my distinguished guests and friends. A written complaint was sent to Police Station Roshnara but no action has been taken as vet. In the complaint filed before the Magistrate by Dr. Jain something similar was stated though in more details. In his statement in Court as P. W. 1, the allegation against the Petitioner was that when the guests started taking lunch on 12th May 1959 the Petitioner began to abuse the ladies in his premises, from the first floor of her house. She said "That we were Bad mashes and thieves and were not paying rent." In addition she abused the ladies by saying that they were "Randian" and other words of the same type. Thereafter she came down to the ground floor and took a position on the main gate across the compound wall. Alter finishing the lunch the guests came to the veranda to wash their hands. She entered the main gate of the house, even though the constables asked her not to do so and came right into the varandah and started abusing by repeating the same kind of language. She also threatened to get Dr. Jain removed from the office of Honorary Magistrate and his wife from that of M. L. A. The Petitioner admitted in her examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that she entered the compound of the house through the main gate, although she was asked by 1 he constables on duty not to do so. She claimed, however, that she remained at a long distance from the verandah and did not use any abusive language nor threatened to get the complainant and his wife removed from the offices held by them. According to her, she went to the spot because Dr. Jain was not paying rent to her and S. Partap Singh Kairon had come to the house and she wanted to make a request to him in the matter. She denied the other part of the incident of hurling abuses from the first floor when the guests had reached the house. Both the Additional District Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge found that Dr. Jain was in actual possession of the verandah and the open compound on the front side on 12th May 1959 and that she had trespassed into the compound in spite of the police stopping her and against the express wishes of Dr. Jain. The Additional District Magistrate, however, came to the conclusion that the Petitioner lost all restraint and used abusive language towards Dr. Jain and his wife Smt Om Prabha Jain and her conduct was calculated to try the patience of any person to such an extreme as to cause a breach of the peace although Dr. Jain and his wife kept their temper under control. The learned Additional Sessions Judge did not believe the complainant's version or that of his witnesses that the Petitioner uttered any abuses. According to the learned Judge, the question was "Whether without uttering these words the accused, who entered the house against the express wishes of the complainant and said something about the non -payment of rent due to her in the presence of the eminent guests which the complainant and his wife had with them, to is not guilty of the offences for which she has been convicted". After discussing a number of authorities, the learned Judge proceeded to say - The principle deducible from the above cited authorities is that it is the intent to annoy that matters and not mere knowledge that the trespass may have that effect. Where there is some other dominant intent, then that would exclude the presumed intent namely that the accused intended the natural consequences of his act. Here it is said that the intention of the accused was to see S. Partap Singh Kairon, the Chief Minister. A letter had previously been written to seek an appointment for that purpose. But no witness has been examined nor any document produced to prove that assertion. Besides, this was not the only place where S. Partap Singh Kairon could be met in Delhi. The proper place for meeting him should be the one where he stays in Delhi -An attempt could be made to contact him whilst he was entering the house of the complainant or coming out of it. The so -called desire to see S. Partap Singh Karion is to be viewed in the context of the circumstances in which it was attempted to be translated into action. The accused on entering the house did not seek an interview with Shri Kairon but forthwith proceeded to proclaim in the presence of the guests about the complainant not paying the rent due to her and said some other unpalatable things though she probably stopped short of using abusive language.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that according to the finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge the Petitioner did not utter any abuses of the nature alleged by the complainant. Her conviction has been sustained on the conclusion that after entering the compound of the house she proceeded to proclaim in the presence of the guests about the complainant not paying the rent due to her. It is pointed out that there is no justification tor the learned Judge saying, that she said some other unpalatable things also because he had already found earlier that whatever she said was about non -payment of rent which was due to her; nor is there any credible evidence about her proclaiming about non -payment of rent. There is force in this submission. The only witness who could be called disinterested is P. W. 2 Maharaj. Hari Singh Nihal Singh, a member of Parliament. According to him, the Petitioner had abused the complainant and his wife and she was saying that she would have removed him from Doctorship and his wife from M. L, A, ship. It is significant that Dr. Jain in his complaint to. the Deputy Inspector General of Police had made no such allegation, nor was it stated by him that she had proclaimed to his guests about this default in payment of rent. No mention was made by this witness about that matter, e. g. statement regarding non -payment of rent. It is pointed out that the other P. W. s, namely P. W. 3 Mohan Singh Bajaj was an employee of the complainant and could not be regarded as distinterested. P. W. 4 was Smt. Om Prabha Jain, the wife of the complainant. P. W. 5 Dr. Satish Parkash did not say anything about the matter. The testimony of P. W. 6 Kalyan Singh and P. W. 7 Sada Nand Head Constable had been discarded by the Additional Sessions Judge for the reasons stated in paragraph 9 of his judgment inasmuch as they had made an obvious attempt to improve upon their previous statements. The complainant and his wife were interested and there had been a good deal of bad blood between them and the Petitioner, Thus there was no evidence on which the learned Additional Sessions Judge could find that the Petitioner had proclaimed or stated in disparaging terms the fact of the Petitioner not having paid the rent due to her, and I find it difficult to uphold the conclusion of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and that the Petitioner made any such statements even if it be assumed that she trespassed into the compound up to the verandah when the guests of Dr. Jain were there.;