S.Shamsul Hasan, J.

1. An incident that can almost be described as trival created a whirlpool dragging the petitioner to his very destruction and resulting in his conviction under Sec.354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of simple imprisonment for six months, which may ultimately result in his dismissal from service.

2. The place of occurrence is Rourkela, Cuttak Road. The time of occurrence is about mid-night and the date is the winter night of 27-12-1967. The persons involved in the occurrence are just two, Dr. Minati Patnaik (P.W. 8) who is a lady doctor, travelling in the bus and the petitioner, who is a high ranking Police Officer of I. P. S, Cadre in the State of Orissa. The criminal act of the petitioner was the touching of the belly of the lady doctor. Both the personalities involved in this drama boarded the bus at Rourkela. the petitioner later during the journey, occupying a seat just behind the lady doctor. The passengers in the bus, including these two persons, were sleeping. It is said that once she felt some body touching her belly when she became alert. She found some body touching her belly below her breast. It is said in the evidence that she was not sure whether it was the hand of a stranger coming stray or her own Thus alerted when she found a hand touching her belly for the second time she immediately caught hold of the hand and immediate reprisal followed in the form of beating inflicted on the petitioner by the lady doctor with her hands as well as cbappal. the matter, as far as the lady doctor (P. W. 8) was concerned ended there because she did not file any case either before the police, perhaps because of the rank and position of the petitioner, or before the Court or before any other higher Executive of the State, except (ille) to her husband and father.

3. The matter did not end there. The ripple caused by a hand over a belly covered the whole of the State of Orissa and demonstration resulted ultimately in a judicial enquiry which was conducted by S.K. Ray, J. who found the allegation to be true, resulting in the filing of a complaint after about two years by one Mr. R. N. Patnaik, Under Secretary to the Government of Orissa, before the Court.

4. The enormous amount of public sentiment that was generated over this incident perhaps resulted in the transfer of this case outside Orissa on the order of the Supreme Court arid that is how it came to be tried in Dhanbad, where the petitioner was convicted and sentenced, as mentioned above, his appeal also being dismissed.

5. When the matter came to this Court a rule was issued on the question of sentence. Against this limited rule the petitioner moved the Supreme Court where his Application at the orders of that Court has been kept pending till the disposal of this application.

6. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner was that on merit this petitioner deserved to be acquitted and invited this Court to hear the petition on merit in spite of limited rule, which, this Court, according to him, was fully empowered to do. Following this point his contention was that in law no offence has been committed by this petitioner and his conviction and sentence are bad in law. Alternatively, he submitted that the sentence is too harsh.

7. The State of Orissa was represented by the Advocate General of Bihar. His submission was that this Court was not empowered to go into the merits of the case when a limited rule has been issued and submitted further that since the justifiability of the limited rule is still sub-judice in the Supreme Court, this Court should not interfere on merit, unless, the Supreme Court allows the application of the petitioner. He further submitted that even on merit the application deserves to be dismissed. His submission was that undoubtedly not only the occurrence has been proved but an offence has been made out, the petitioner thus deserving the sentence that he has received.

8. I will first take up the question whether