Skip to content


Hukumchand Mishrilal Mehta and ors. Vs. Chandmal Bhagwan Mehta - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMadhya Pradesh
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1950MP25; 1950CriLJ764
AppellantHukumchand Mishrilal Mehta and ors.
RespondentChandmal Bhagwan Mehta
Cases ReferredPhilip Bangel v. Emperor A.I.R.
Excerpt:
- - it appears to me that this complaint is not at all well founded......criminal reference is made by the district magistrate, ratlam, recommending that the conviction of accused hukumchand, no. 2 bapulal and no. 3 ratanlal, by the first class magistrate ratlam under sections 323 & 504 be set aside. the short facts are that the complainant chandmal filed a complaint under sections 323, 352, 504, 500, 506 and 109, penal code against 10 persons consisting of the entire family, the trial court proceeded under sections 323 and 504 and all the accused were discharged except hukumchand, bapulal and ratanlal - hukum. chand was convicted under section 323, penal code and sentenced to a fine of rsection 10 and bapulal and batanlal are convicted under section 504 and sentenced to a fine of rsection 10 each.2. i have gone through the order of reference and it appears.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Mehta, J.

1. This criminal reference is made by the District Magistrate, Ratlam, recommending that the conviction of accused Hukumchand, NO. 2 Bapulal and no. 3 Ratanlal, by the First Class Magistrate Ratlam Under Sections 323 & 504 be set aside. The short facts are that the complainant Chandmal filed a complaint Under Sections 323, 352, 504, 500, 506 and 109, Penal Code against 10 persons consisting of the entire family, The trial Court proceeded Under Sections 323 and 504 and all the accused were discharged except Hukumchand, Bapulal and Ratanlal - Hukum. chand was convicted Under Section 323, Penal Code and sentenced to a fine of RSection 10 and Bapulal and Batanlal are convicted Under Section 504 and sentenced to a fine of RSection 10 each.

2. I have gone through the order of reference and it appears to me that the referenoe must be aoeepted. The reference is also supported by the Publio Prosecutor. It appears to me that this complaint is not at all well founded. It is alleged that the offence took place on 9th June 19i7 but the complaint was filed on 18th June 1947. There ia some delay in filing the com. plaint. It appears that the complaint ia against the whole family. There ia no reference in the complaint about accused Hukumchand, Bapulal and Batanlal having abused the complainant. The allegation is against Raji and Mankuwar but they have been discharged. The evidence adduced is not such aa to inspire confidence. It ia a case of mere vulgar abuse and as held in Philip Bangel v. Emperor A.I.R. (19) 1932 Bom. 193 : Cr Cr.L.J. 463, 'mere vulgar abuse' does not amount to an insult or offence Under Section 604. Even if it is a technical offence Under Section 604, the matter is covered by Section 96 barring Cognizance by Courts in view of its triviality.

3. I, therefore, accept the reference and set aside the order of conviction and sentence. The fine, if paid, be refunded.


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