Back
1986 Supreme(Cal) 247
High Court Of Calcutta
Lilamoy Ghosh
SRI UTTAM BASU - Appellant
Versus
SMT.GEETA MULLICK AND OTHERS - Respondent
Criminal Revision 124 Of 1982
Decided On : 06/20/1986
RAMAPATI ROY, S.K.DAS GUPTA
To establish an offense under section 430 of the I. P. C., there must be regular or habitual diminution of water supply, and mere momentary stoppage does not suffice.
Headnote:
Disturbance - Supply of Water - The court found that a momentary stoppage of water supply does not constitute an offense under section 430 of the I. P. C. and upheld the order of acquittal.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner tenant complained about disturbance in the supply of water by the landlady and others, leading to a case under section 430 of the I. P. C.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the order of acquittal, stating that the evidence did not substantiate the allegation against the accused.
Issues: The main contention was whether the stoppage of water supply on a certain occasion constituted an offense under section 430 of the I. P. C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that to establish an offense under section 430 of the I. P. C., there must be regular or habitual diminution of water supply, and mere stoppage for a moment would not suffice.
Final Decision: The revisional application was dismissed, and the Rule was disposed of accordingly.
( 1 ) THE petitioner tenant made a complaint that the landlady O. P. 1 and the Opts. 2 to 5 caused disturbance in the supply of water. A case was started, being G. R. Case No. 3525 of 1973 under section 430 of the I. P. C.
( 2 ) BY his order - dated 8. 9. 81, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alipore acquitted the accused O. Ps.
( 3 ) THIS revisional application is directed against that order of acquittal. htrn 9/8/2006
( 4 ) MR. Ramapati Roy, the learned advocate has appeared for the petitioner. None appeared for the O. Ps. to 5.
( 5 ) MR. S. K. Das Gupta appeared for the State.
( 6 ) THE only contention of Mr. Roy, appearing for the petitioner has been that there is sufficient evidence that on the date the commissioner came for inspection, O. Ps. 1 to 5 caused disturbance in the supply of water. The learned advocate for the State has supported the order of the learned Magistrate.
( 7 ) IT is evident that this revisional application does Dot lie. On the evidence recorded, the learned Magistrate came to the finding that the allegation against the accused was Dot substantiated. Two witnesses P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 were examined for the prosecution. The two witnesses contradicted each other. P. W. 2 categorically stated that she used to get supply of water during certain hours that being the state of evidence the learned Magistrate was justified in recording an order of acquittal. It appears that the petitioner is mainly carried by the incident when the Commissioner for local inspection came. It is alleged that on that occasion the supply of water was stopped. On that basis, it is contended that the case having been proved the learned Magistrate should not have acquitted. It is forgotton that, that in order to bring a case within the mischief of section 430 of the I. P. C. it must be proved that there was regular or habitual diminution of the supply of water. Mere stoppage for a moment would not make out a case under section 430 of the I. P. C. So even if there be evidence for stoppage of water on a certain occasion, that would not make out a case under section 430 of the I. P. C. I find that there is sufficient material for the conclusion arrived at by the learned Magistrate. In this revisional matter I would not go into reappraisal of evidence. Having found that there is evidence to support the conclusion of the learned Magistrate, I would not interfere on the ground of illegality.
( 8 ) THE revisional application fails. It is dismissed. The Rule is disposed of accordingly. Let the lower court records be sent down to the court below expeditiously.
