SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1963 Supreme(Cal) 211

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Amaresh Roy
MADHAB CHANDRA CHARCHARI - Appellant
Versus
NALINI MANNA - Respondent
Criminal Revn.  602  Of  1963
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 28, 1963

Advocates Appeared:
Anil Kumar Sen, Bejoy Basanta Koley, MADHUSUDAN BANERJI, S.N.GHORAI

Obstructing a motor vehicle carrying passengers constitutes wrongful restraint of the passengers and crew under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code.

Headnote:

WRONGFUL RESTRAINT - SECTION 341 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION - OBSTRUCTION OF A MOTOR VEHICLE CARRYING PASSENGERS CONSTITUTES WRONGFUL RESTRAINT OF THE PASSENGERS AND CREW - ERRONEOUS ACQUITTAL BY APPELLATE COURT DUE TO MISINTERPRETATION OF LAW - REVISION DISMISSED CONSIDERING LACK OF GRAVE FAILURE OF JUSTICE.

Fact of the Case:

A motor bus carrying passengers was stopped and restrained from proceeding by the accused persons, resulting in wrongful restraint of the passengers and crew. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code, but the appellate court acquitted them, holding that restraining a motor bus does not amount to wrongful restraint of a person.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the appellate court erred in its interpretation of Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code. The court found that obstructing a motor vehicle carrying passengers constitutes wrongful restraint of the passengers and crew, as the word "proceed" in the definition of wrongful restraint includes proceeding by outside agency, such as a motor vehicle.

Issues: 1. Whether restraining a motor bus carrying passengers constitutes wrongful restraint of the passengers and crew under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code? 2. Whether the appellate court erred in acquitting the accused persons based on a misinterpretation of the law?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the word "proceed" in the definition of wrongful restraint in Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code includes proceeding by outside agency, such as a motor vehicle. Therefore, obstructing a motor vehicle carrying passengers constitutes wrongful restraint of the passengers and crew. 2. The court found that the appellate court erred in acquitting the accused persons based on a misinterpretation of the law. The court held that the appellate court's reasoning that restraining a motor bus does not amount to wrongful restraint of a person is erroneous.

Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the revision petition, considering that although the order of acquittal was illegal and erroneous, it did not occasion such failure of justice as would require it to be set aside in exercise of revisional powers of the court.

AMARESH ROY, J.

( 1 ) THIS Rule is directed against an appellate order of acquittal passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge' of Midnapore acquitting the two opposite parties who had been convicted by the trial Magistrate of offence under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 25/- In default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two weeks under that section. In the trial Court there were five accused persons Including the present opposite parties. The common charge against all of them was one under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code. In addition to that charge, the opposite parties Nalini Manna and Kallpada Kulavi and another person named Sudhangsu Das had also been charged for an offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and another accused Monoranjan Kulavi was charged under Section 426 of the Indian Penal Code. The teamed Magistrate acquitted all the accused persona of the charge under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code. He also acquitted Sudhangsu Das, Nalini Manna and Kalipada Kulavi under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Monoranjan Kulavi of the charge under Section 426 of the Indian Penal Code, but he convicted Nalini Manna and Kalipada Kulavi of the offence under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code. On appeal that conviction passed against Nalini Manna and Kalipada Kulavi has been set aside. Against that appellate order the de facto complainant Madhav Chandra Charehari moved this Court and the present Rule issued.

( 2 ) PROSECUTION case briefly is that on 21st of May, 1962 a motor-bus No. W G B 1414 that has been given a name "pusparath" was on its journey on Ghatal-Panskura route in the district of Midnapore with several passengers in it. Madhav Charchari P. W. 1 was the conductor of that bus, Gunadhar Khamroy P. W. 3 was the helper of that bus, Gojri Hari Bera P. W. 2 was the chacker of the bus, and Niranjan Pramanik was the driver. The bus "pus-paratha" left Ghatal at 7. 30 P. M. with several passengers in it besides the driver, conductor, helper and checker above named. In course of the journey the bus reached a midway point in village Goura at about 8-30 P. M. to drop some passengers of the bus and also to pick up some passengers at that station. The bus-stand at Goura is in front of a shop of which the accused Nalini Manna is the proprietor. While taking down some luggages from the top of the bus a bundle of Shal leaves accidentally fell in the conductor Madhav. Madhav expressed his annoyance by uttering some abuses against the helper Gunadhar who, Madhav thought, was responsible for dropping the Shal leaves although it was the passenger to whom the Shal leaves belonged who had in fact been responsible for dropping the load of Shal leaves. That passenger thought that the abuses uttered by Madhav were directed to him and a quarrel ensued. In that quarrel accused Nalini Manna and Kalipada Kulavi and several other persons intervened and assaulted the conductor and the helper of the bus after restraining the bus with its passengers from proceeding towards its destination. Besides the accused persons some members of the public intervened at that stage and the bus started to move. When the bus had gone only a few yards the accused persons chased the bus in a motor-car and made the bus to stop by obstructing its way by putting that motor-car in front of the bus and prevented, it from proceeding on the way with the several passengers that were in it. Prosecution alleges that at this stage also the conducor was again assaulted and some damages was done to the bus itself by the accused persons. Only when the passengers in the bus showed their resentment at being Wrongfully restrained that way from proceeding in the way they had a right to proceed, that the bus was allowed to continue its journey. The bus reached its destination at Ghatal that night and on the next day, that is, the 22nd of May, 196














Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top