HABIBULSAB HASANSAB SINDAGI Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The offence with which the petitioner-accused was charged was that he used threatening and indecent language and behaved in a disorderly manner with an intent to provoke a breach of the peace and thereby committed an offence punishable under S.92(1) (r) of the Mysore Police Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as Act) and the further offence with which the petitioner-accused was charged was that he was found drunk and incapable of taking care of himself under the influence of alcohol and behaved indecently in the police station which is a public resort and thereby committed an offence under S.92(1) (p) of the said Act.

(2.) So far as the offence under Cl.(1) (r)of S.92 of the Act is concerned the learned Magistrate has disbelieved the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and has held that the accused had not committed any offence under the above said Act, and in that view of the matter he acquitted the petitioner-accused. So far as the offence under Cl. (1) (p) of S.92 of the Act, is concerned, the learned Magistrate relying upon the evidence of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Jamkhandi, who has been examined as PW.4 and another Sub-Inspector by name Srirang of Banahatti Police Station came to the conclusion that the accused was found drunk and incapable of taking care of himself in the police station and therefore he was liable to be punished under Cl.(1) (p) of S.92 of the Act. Accordingly he convicted him and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.10 in default to suffer simple imprisonment for five days. As against this conviction, the accused has preferred this revision petition.

(3.) The accused in this case was a police constable attached to Jamkhandi Police Station. The case against him was that on 8-5-1970 at about 3-00 or 3-30 P.M. he was found in one of the streets at Jamkhandi with an injury on his right thumb. The medical evidence in the case shows that the accused had sustained a compound fracture. The prosecution has sought to prove by examining PWs.1, 5 to 8 that the accused was found in a public place or street using threatening or abusive or insulting words, behaved in a disorderly manner with an intent to provoke the breach of the peace or whereby the breach of the peace might be occasioned. The above witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution, on the other hand their evidence shows that the accused had sustained a serious injury on his right thumb which required immediate treatment. Their version is that because of the injury he had sustained he was not behaving in the normal way. Although one of these witnesses has stated that the accused was smelling alcohol it is clear from the evidence of these witnesses that even if he had consumed alcohol he was not behaving indecently. But on the other-hand their evidence points out that the accused was suffering from great pain and for that reason he was not normal. On that score the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused of an offence under Cl.(1) (r) of S.92 of the Act.