Skip to content


Remal Dass S/O Sunam Rai and anr. Vs. the State - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1963CriLJ718
AppellantRemal Dass S/O Sunam Rai and anr.
RespondentThe State
Excerpt:
.....sections 80 (2) & 89 & punjab motor vehicles rules, 1989, rules 85 & 80: [t.s. thakur, cj, jasbir singh & surya kant, jj] appeal against orders of state or regional transport authority imitation held, a stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. that is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the act. so viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) sections 80 and 89 of the act read with rule 85 of the rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply..........them and the petitioners again fired shots in the air. it is stated that ultimately joginder singh complainant struck a lathi blow on the but of the gun of ramchand singh petitioner and overpowered him. the other petitioner was also overpowered.3. in the examination of the accused ramchand singh, the following question was put by the magistrate--there is accusation against you that on 13-2-1962 at about 8-30 p. m. in the area of village aharwan you along with your co-accused remai dass, jit singh and another person were present armed with your gun and remal dass had his own gun. at that time joginder singh complainant along with his party reached there in jeeps and cars and stopped near you. on seeing them halting you fired shots in the air in a rash and negligent manner so as to.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Tek Chand, J.

1. This is a petition of revision on. behalf of two accused-petitioners from the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Hissar rejecting their appeal. The Magistrate 1st Class, Fatehabad had found the two accused guilty under Section 336. Indian Penal Code, and had sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks.

2. The prosecution allegations against the two petitioners were that on 13th February, 1962 at about 8-30 p. m. in the area of village Aharwan they were armed with guns. At that time the complainant Joginder Singh along with his friends had arrived there in a jeep. On seeing them the two petitioners fired shots in the air in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the public safety and human life. The complainant and his companions had concealed themselves behind the jeep and on this the petitioners went away on their tractor. The complainant and his companions followed them and the petitioners again fired shots in the air. It is stated that ultimately Joginder Singh complainant struck a lathi blow on the but of the gun of Ramchand Singh petitioner and overpowered him. The other petitioner was also overpowered.

3. In the examination of the accused Ramchand Singh, the following question was put by the Magistrate--

There is accusation against you that on 13-2-1962 at about 8-30 p. m. in the area of village Aharwan you along with your co-accused Remai Dass, Jit Singh and another person were present armed with your gun and Remal Dass had his own gun. At that time Joginder Singh complainant along with his party reached there in jeeps and cars and stopped near you. On seeing them halting you fired shots in the air in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger public safety and human life. On it the P. W.s took their positions behind jeeps etc. and you along with your co-accused made good escape by riding on tractor No. P. N. W. 1777 belonging to you and went towards the canal road of Munshiwala minor where you and your co-accused were surrounded by the 'P. W.s. Again you fired a shot in the air but Joginder Singh hit a lathi blow on the but of your gun as a result of which the gun fell down on the ground and you and your co-accused were overpowered by the P. Ws. What have you to say about it?' To this the accused replied as under--

It is correct. I do not want to contest the case, I was in a drunken state at that time. I may be excused.

A similar question was put to Remal Dass the other petitioner who also admitted the correctness of the allegations and sought to be excused as he was in a drunken state. The two accused declined to offer any defence. The Magistrate found both the accused guilty and sentenced each one of them to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. Their conviction and sentence was maintained by the Sessions Judge.

4. Mr. Keer learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that on the assumption that the prosecution allegations along with the admissions of the two accused are correct, no offence under Section 336 has been made out in this case because the gun had been fired in the air and it cannot be assumed that this was done rashly or negligently so as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others. It is admitted by the accused that they were in a drunken condition. It is not denied that the complainant had to take shelter behind the jeep. The question is that when a person who is admittedly in a drunken state, uses a fire arm, whether such a conduct could be termed as rash or negligent. The circumstances of this case do suggest to me that the act was both rash and negligent.

The phrase 'rashly' means something more than mere inadvertence or inattentiveness or want of ordinary care. A person who acts rashly shows indifference to obvious consequences and to the rights of others, and does not mind whether a danger would result or not. A rash act is indicative of disregard of consequences. A drunken person firing a gun in the dark in such circumstances as are attendant in this case does so negligently. It is not the plea of the defence that they were sober and that they discharged firearms deliberately in order to scare away the complainant. As they were in a drunken condition when they started. firing shots, their impugned act is covered by the ingredients of the offence under Section 336. In the circumstances, I am not persuaded by the argument that the conduct of the petitioners was neither rash nor negligent. I am satisfied that they were rightly convicted. The sentence of fine of Rs. 100/-on each petitioner is not excessive.

5. I maintain the conviction and the sentence of both the petitioners. The revision petition fails and is dismissed.


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