1. The Sessions Judge, Wardha, has recommended by this reference that the conviction of the non-applicant Tanba under Section 448 I. P. C. should be quashed. It is not possible to accept thisreference.
2. The facts leading to the prosecution and the reference are somewhat unusual and require to be noticed in detail. One Shri Anna Choudhari was a Head Master of a municipal school at village Mirapur in Wardha district, 'the accused Tanba, is supposed to be a Vice Chairman of the School Committee. The accused has a nephew by name Bandu, who is studying in the school. On 19-3-62 during the recess time there was some kind of quarrel between the nephew of the accused on the one hand and two other boys, Gunwant and Punjab, on the other. The accused came into the school while the Head-Master was absent and he beat the two boys, Gunwant and Punjab. In the meantime, the Head-Master returned at about 2-15 P. M. The accused was in the school. The two boys were weeping. On inquiries they informed the Head-Master that they were beaten by the accused Tanba. On this the Head-Master reprimanded the accused that as a respectable person he should not have trespassed in the school and beaten the boys. The accused was incensed at this, and he started abusing the Head-Master and tried to catch. hold of his shirt and was about to use physical force. The Head-Master pushed back the accused and the accused went away abusing. He also threatened the Head-Master physical harm as soon as he came out' of the school. The complainant Shri Choudhari immediately made a report in the Police Station and a copy of the report was sent to the Janapad authorities. The Police Sub-Inspector made inquiries, and he prosecuted the accused Tanba under Sections. 448 and 506 I. P. C. At the trial the Head-Master and the boys concerned were examined. It was obvious that the boy Punjab had been won over and had to be declared hostile, but he supported substantially a part of the prosecution case. Similarly, another witness by name Shriram was also won over and had to be declared hostile. The defence of the accused was one of total denial. He did not admit that he went into the school or had anything to do with the beating of the two boys. His case was that all along he was at home and that it was his sister-in-law who wanted to chastise the boys. He alleged that the false complaint was made against him because of Some village dispute.
3. The learned trying Magistrate accepted the prosecution case, convicted the accused on each count and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 257.
4. The accused challenged his conviction by a revision petition before the Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge has found that the conviction under section 506 I, P. C. was proper and there is no case for interference with that finding. As regards the conviction under Section 448 I. P. C. the learned Sessions Judge has observed as follows:
'It is admitted by the complainant that the accused was Vice-Chairman of his school. If that was so he had a right to enter into the premises of, the school. It cannot he said that his entry was wrongful. The important ingredient of the offence under section 448 I. P. C., therefore, is missing ......... I am, therefore, of the view that theconviction under Section 448 I. P. C. requires to be quashed since the prosecution has not led any evidence to prove criminal intention on the part of the accused to enter the premises and cause any injury to anybody. Even, the intention to intimidate the complainant arose at the spur of the moment during the wordy quarrel between them. I, therefore think that this is a fit case for a report being made to the High Court with a recommendation to quash the conviction under Section 448 I. P. C.'
It is not possible to accept the recommendation. The learned Sessions Judge has failed to see that as Head-Master of the school the complainant was in possession and control of the school premises. He had to maintain the discipline of the school and the sanctity of the institution. Even assuming that the accused was an office bearer of the Committee which may be supervising the school the accused could certainly have no right to go into the school and beat any of the students by way of revenge because his own nephew had complained of being beaten by other boys. The only thing and the proper thing that the accused could have done was to make a complaint to the Head-Master on behalf of his nephew if he desired any action. Instead, he preferred to take law in his own hands and create a scene in the school in the presence of other students and teachers. What is worse, when the Head-Master told him that it was not becoming of any citizen, much less an office-bearer of an institution, to come into the school premises and start belabouring the boys in absence of the teacher, he started abusing the Head Master and also wanted to assault him. Even though the initial entry of the accused may be considered innocuous, of which also there is grave doubt, as he is proved to have gone in the premises with the avowed purpose of giving a thrashing and actually beat the boys, his continuance there was certainly with the intention of annoying and insulting the teacher. He did insult the teacher by indulging in abuses and also wanted to beat him.' It is, therefore, difficult to see in face of this evidence how it could be held that there was lack of evidence to prove a criminal intent on the part of the accused.
5. There is no evidence on record either that even in his capacity as a Vice-Chairman of the School Committee, the accused had any legal right to remain on the school premises when tho Head-Master reprimanded him about his conduct in coming into the school and beating the boys who were in the charge of the Head-Master during school hours and in the school premises. The school is under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Head-Master, No one has a right to go into the school and take liberties with the boys and thus put in jeopardy the discipline of the school and the sacred atmosphere of the place. The action of the accused was unquestionably high-handed. The accused forgot his responsibility both as ftcitizen and much more as an office-bearer of the society which was perhaps entrusted with the management of the school. That office would not give him any right to commit a criminal trespass. Even though the accused may have the right to go into the school to make inquiries, his continuance there was certainly with the avowed object of chastising the Head-Master which he demonstrated by starting abuses and preparation to use physical force. This was clear evidence of the accused having the criminal intention which makes the trespass a criminal trespass within the meaning of sections 441 and 442 I. P. C. It would be impossible for the Head of an educational institution to carry on effectively his duties if the parents or guardians or even any office-bearers connected with the management of the school were to be permitted to trespass in the premises of the school not only to humiliate the teachers in the presence of the boys but also to indulge in abuses and use of physical force in supposed exercise of their right. There is no such right. The conviction under section 448 I. P. C. therefore is also proper. The reference is rejected.
6. Reference rejected.