Skip to content


Vijayamma Vs. State of Karnataka - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Revn. Petn. No. 588 of 1980
Judge
Reported inILR1981KAR1141; 1981(2)KarLJ342
ActsKarnataka Police Act, 1963 - Sections 2(18) and 92(1)
AppellantVijayamma
RespondentState of Karnataka
Appellant AdvocateR. Anantharaman, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateM.V. Devaraju, Special Public Prosecutor
Excerpt:
.....by imposing penalty up to rs. 25,000/- and also recommend for disciplinary action against him. thus commission is empowered to enforce its own order. remedy being available under rti act itself, contempt petition under contempt of courts act, 1971 is not maintainable. - hence, it cannot be held that pial of a private house, which may be open to the public and, therefore accessible to the public, would satisfy this part of the definition the result, it will have to be held that the prosecution has failed to establish that the petitioner has committed the offence punishable under s......guilty. 3. the only important question to be considered is whether a pial of a private house is a 'public place' so as to fall within the meaning of s. 92(1)(o) and (r) of the act. 4. 'public place' is defined as follows in s. 2(18) of the act :- 'public place' includes the foreshore, the precincts of every public building or monument, and all places accessible to the public for drawing water, washing or bathing or for the purpose of recreation;'. 5. the learned state public prosecutor argued that pial of a house is accessible to public and, therefore it is a public place within the meaning of the said provisions. this argument does not appeal to me. at the most, it can be said that it is a private place to which any member of the public so minded can have access. moreover, reading of.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. This petition is directed against the conviction and sentence passed on the petitioner by the Metropolitan Magistrate (Traffic Court-I) Bangalore City, in C.C. No. 3527 of 1980. The learned Magistrate has convicted the petitioner for having committed the offence punishable under S. 92(1)(o) and (r) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced her to pay a fine of Rs. 10/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two days.

2. The simple case of the prosecution is that at about 12.00 noon on 17-1-1980, one Jayalakshmi noticed that in her absence the petitioner had spread wheat on the pial of her house and that she told the petitioner to remove the wheat as the children would spoil it, but the petitioner abused her in foul language and assaulted her. She subsequently informed the matter to the police and the police investigated into the case. After investigation, the petitioner was charge-sheeted for having committed the aforementioned offence of which she has been held guilty.

3. The only important question to be considered is whether a pial of a private house is a 'public place' so as to fall within the meaning of S. 92(1)(o) and (r) of the Act.

4. 'Public place' is defined as follows in S. 2(18) of the Act :- 'Public Place' includes the foreshore, the precincts of every public building or monument, and all places accessible to the public for drawing water, washing or bathing or for the purpose of recreation;'.

5. The learned State Public Prosecutor argued that pial of a house is accessible to public and, therefore it is a public place within the meaning of the said provisions. This argument does not appeal to me. At the most, it can be said that it is a private place to which any member of the public so minded can have access. Moreover, reading of the aforementioned definition of the term 'public place' shows that places accessible to the public should be those for drawing water, washing or bathing or for purpose of recreation. Hence, it cannot be held that pial of a private house, which may be open to the public and, therefore accessible to the public, would satisfy this part of the definition the result, it will have to be held that the prosecution has failed to establish that the petitioner has committed the offence punishable under S. 92(1)(o) and (r) of the Act.

6. In view of the foregoing reasons, I allow the revision petition, set aside the conviction and sentence passed on the petitioner by the Metropolitan Magistrate (Traffic Court-I) Bangalore City, in C.C. No. 3527 of 1980 and acquit the petitioner.

7. Revision allowed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //