Skip to content


K.V. George Vs. State of Kerala - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1972CriLJ1095
AppellantK.V. George
RespondentState of Kerala
Cases ReferredDevassv v. State of Kerala
Excerpt:
- state financial corporation act, 1951[c.a. no. 63/1951. sections 29 & 31: [k.s. radhakrishnan, thottathil b. radhakrishnan & m.n. krishnan, jj] recovery of loan amount held, once industrial concern commits default in repayment of the loan or advance made by the financial corporation and under a liability, the right of the corporation to invoke section 29 of the act accrues and it is open to the corporation to realise the entire loan advanced to the industrial concern not only from the properties of the industrial concern but also from the properties pledged or mortgaged b y the sureties for the loan advanced by the corporation. section 29 is a complete code by itself. liability of principal-debtor and surety is always joint and co-extensive. [n. narasimhaiah v karnataka state..........the petitioner alleging that at about 8.45 p.m. on 18-6-1971 the petitioner went to the shoranur police station and indulged in a violent, riotous, disorderly and indecent behaviour towards the police uttering the following words directed against p. w. 2 the police constable who was on guard duty outside the police station: 'are you not mohamed koya's man? is the sub-inspector inside? let me tell him about you. where is the post-mortem certificate of the dead body of a person lying in the kozhissery forest? i wanted to see it; if not i will enter inside and take it'. on hearing these words, p. w. 1 the sub-inspector was alleged to have sent the charge against the petitioner to the magistrate. in terms of the charge, p. ws. 1 and 2 gave evidence before the court.3. the petitioner stated.....
Judgment:
ORDER

E.K. Moidu, J.

1. The revision petitioner was convicted by the Additional First Class Magistrate Ottapalam under Section 51-A of the Kerala Police Act 5 of 1961 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 45/-; in default to simple imprisonment for 2 days. The revision to this court is against the conviction and sentence.

2. On 21-6-1971 the Sub-Inspector of Police Shoranur laid a charge against the petitioner alleging that at about 8.45 p.m. on 18-6-1971 the petitioner went to the Shoranur Police Station and indulged in a violent, riotous, disorderly and indecent behaviour towards the Police uttering the following words directed against P. W. 2 the Police Constable who was on guard duty outside the Police Station: 'Are you not Mohamed Koya's man? Is the Sub-Inspector inside? Let me tell him about you. Where is the post-mortem certificate of the dead body of a person lying in the Kozhissery forest? I wanted to see it; if not I will enter inside and take it'. On hearing these words, P. W. 1 the Sub-Inspector was alleged to have sent the charge against the petitioner to the Magistrate. In terms of the charge, P. Ws. 1 and 2 gave evidence before the Court.

3. The petitioner stated that as the local reporter of the 'Thantiniram' which is a Malayalam daily newspaper published at Trivandrum he went to the Police Station as usual to get reports of incidents which took place within the jerisdiction of the Police Station. He had also stated that on account of the previous publications Exhibits Dl and D2 on 9-9-1970 and 24-9-1970 in the 'Thaniniram' making allegations against the Shoranur Police, the Sub-Inspector and other Police Officers were at loggerheads with him and that the case was foisted on him without any basis. He denied having behaved in a violent, riotous, disorderly and indecent manner and stated further that he is not guilty of any offence.

4. The only question for consideration is whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing beyond doubt the offence under Section 51-A of the Kerala Police Act against the petitioner.

5. P. Ws. 1 and 2 gave evidence in terms of the charge laid before the court. Though the occurrence took place at 8.45 p. m. on 18-6-1971. the charge sheet was received in the Magistrate's Court only on 21-6-1971. There was no evidence that P. W. 1, the Sub-Inspector made any entry in the General Diary as and when the incident took place P. W. 1 also did not take the petitioner into custody. Anyway, even if the petitioner had used these words, the question is whether they constitute violent riotous, disorderly and indecent behaviour on his part towards the Police. The relevant portion of Section 51A reads:

Whoever in any street or public place, or in any court. Police Station or other public office or in any place of public amusement or resort or on board any passenger boat or vessel or in any public passenger vehicle, is guilty of any violent, riotous, disorderly or indecent behaviour shall, on conviction be liable to fine which may extend to fifty rupees, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to eight days or both.

It cannot be said from the utterance made by the petitioner that there had been any violence on his part. Violence is physical force unlawfully exercised. There was no occasion for the petitioner to have used any such physical force unlawfully. The mere uttering of the words may not constitute violent or disorderly behaviour. Behaviour is defined in Oxford dictionary as 'treatment shown to or towards others'. Bouvier's Law Dictionary Third edition Vol. 1, page 334 gives the meaning of behaviour as 'manner of having holding or keeping one's self carriage of one's self with respect to property, morals and the requirements of law'. In interpreting the word 'behaviour' Anna Chandy, J, in Devassv v. State of Kerala 1962 Ker LT 29 made the following observation:

It seems to me that the expression behaviour connotes something more than the way a person talks. In other words, behaviour is not synonymous with talk. The type of language one uses forms only a part though a large part of one's behaviour. No authority was brought to my notice which would be of help in interpreting the word.

The learned Judge had also occasion to consider the distinction which was made under Section 45 of the Prisons Act between the expression 'the use of insulting or threatening language, and immoral or indecent or disorderly behaviour'. Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 45 of the Prisons Act read as follows:

(3) the use of insulting or threatening language:

(4) immoral or indecent or disorderly behaviour:

Because of the classification of the expression into two categories the learned Judge was of opinion that the use of insulting or threatening language would not constitute riotous or disorderly behaviour so much so it would indicate that there is a clear distinction which is recognised between the use of insulting or threatening language and indecent or disorderly behaviour. In the light of the decision and the other circumstances in the case, it cannot be said that these words by themselves would constitute a violent or disorderly or indecent behaviour. There was no evidence in the case except the testimony of P. Ws. 1 and 2 to show that apart from the use of these words the revision petitioner had exhibited any other type of behaviour or conduct within the precincts of the Police Station. The type of language one uses might form only a part of one's behaviour. There is no case in the charge that the petitioner uttered these words in a loud voice. It is only at the stage of evidence that P. W. 1 stated that the petitioner used the words in a loud tone. It is also significant that on previous occasions the revision petitioner had reported in his newspaper some allegations against the Police at Shoranur. The fact that no general diary was written and that there was delay in sending the charge to the court might also cast serious doubt as to the truth of the accusation against the petitioner. P. W. 1 should have taken prompt action against the petitioner if he had violated Section 51-A of the Police Act. Non compliance of the procedure in accordance with law is another circumstance to show that the accusation against the petitioner is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The| petitioner is, therefore, entitled to an acquittal as he was not proved to have committed any offence. The conviction and sentence are not sustainable.

6. In the result the revision petition is allowed. The conviction and sentence are both set aside. The fine if any realised will be refunded to the revision petitioner.


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