Back
1953 Supreme(Cal) 161
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Chunder
SADANANDA JASH - Appellant
Versus
SHIBAKALI HAZRA - Respondent
Criminal Revn. 336 Of 1953
Decided On : JULY 22, 1953
BIRESWAR CHATTERJI, NIRMAL CHANDRA CHAKRAVARTY, PANCHANAN CHAUDHARY
The principle of 'de minimis non curat lex' from Section 95 of the Penal Code justifies that minor harms should not be the basis for criminal prosecution in civilized society.
Headnote:
de minimis non curat lex - Criminal Offence - The court held that the principle of 'de minimis non curat lex' as expressed in Section 95 of the Penal Code justified the acquittal of the accused for making a mild derogatory remark, emphasizing that minor harms should not be the basis for criminal prosecution in civilized society.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, a school-master, filed a complaint under Section 504, Penal Code against the accused for making a mild derogatory remark during a conversation regarding a land dispute case.
Finding of the Court:
The court, in line with the learned District Magistrate, held that the accused was rightly acquitted, emphasizing the reliability of the witness and the trivial nature of the harm caused.
Issues: The issue revolved around the criminal prosecution for a mild derogatory remark and the application of the principle of 'de minimis non curat lex'.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle of 'de minimis non curat lex' from Section 95 of the Penal Code to justify the acquittal, highlighting that minor harms should not lead to criminal trials in civilized society.
Final Decision: The Rule for setting aside the acquittal was discharged, affirming the decision of the learned Additional District Magistrate.
( 1 ) THIS Rule was issued at the instance of a school-master against an order of the Additional District Magistrate of Burdwan acquitting the" opposite party of an offence under Section 504, Penal Code. Although it is a revision I have been compelled by Mr. Panchanan Chaudhuri with his usual eloquence to hear what was really a full appeal on facts and law against the acquittal. I am of the same opinion as the learned District Magistrate and hold that the accused was rightly acquitted.
( 2 ) BRIEFLY the facts are that between the complainant's brother and the accused there was a criminal case over a land dispute and In the course of a conversation in connection therewith for arriving at a compromise of the case before the Head Master of the school an occurrence took place. The learned District Magistrate points out that the only reliable witness in the case Is the Head Master who being the head of an educational institution deserves to be fully believed. The Head Master's version is that in the course of the conversation in a very mild manner the accused told the school master "apni nichhe katha bol-chhen" (you are telling a lie ). For this the school master rushed to the Criminal Court and filed a complaint under Section 504, Penal Code. The learned District Magistrate exercised his commonsense and acquitted the accused though a Magistrate of the second class had convicted him.
( 3 ) ONE of the first principles of law is 'de minimis non curat lex'. This has found expression in Section 95, Penal Code which enacts that"nothing is an offence by reason that it causes, or that it has intended to cause, or that it is known to be likely to cause, any harm, if that harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm. "this is a complete Justification for what the learned District Magistrate has done. Intercourse in civilised society will come to an end if for words uttered as in the present case, a person found himself exposed to all the trouble and worry of a criminal trial. The order of the learned Additional District Magistrate being right, the Rule for setting aside the acquittal is discharged.
