The words "with any property in his possession or under his charge" in Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code are disjunctive and not conjunctive to "by doing any act".

SHARMA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a reference by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City dated 10th october, 1955 recommending that the convictions of the 14 accused (hereinafter to be referred to as the applicants) be set aside.

( 2 ) THE case against the applicants was that on the 17th of January, 1955 at about 8-30 P. M. , a crowd including the applicants collected in the Johri Bazar on the road near the turning of Rasta Ghiwalan and Satta by American Features was being done there. It was complained that the applicants along with other persons of the crowd blocked the traffic and caused obstruction and annoyance to the public passing by the road.

( 3 ) THE applicants were challenged under Sections 283 and 290 of the Indian Penal code and Section 13 of the Public Gambling Act. The learned Trial Magistrate acquitted all the accused of offences Under Section 290 I. P. C. and Section 13 of the Public Gambling Act but convicted them Under Section 283 of the Indian Penal code and sentenced them to a fine of Rs. 10/- each.

( 4 ) IN his order of reference, the learned Additional Sessions Judge says that section 283 of the Indian Penal Code did not apply to the facts of the present case as the applicants were not causing any danger, obstruction or injury to any person by doing any act or by omitting to take order with any property in their possession or in their charge.

( 5 ) THE explanation of the Trial Magistrate was called for Under Section 80 of the general Rules (Criminal) of this Court. The learned Magistrate says that the words "with any property" Under Section 283 are not to be read with the word "act" and they are to be read only with the phrase "by omitting to take order".

( 6 ) THIS case came up before a single Judge of this Court and he has referred it to a division Bench.

( 7 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the applicants and have gone through the record of the case. We do not agree with the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the words "with any property in his possession or under his charge" are to be read with the words "any act" also in Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code. There is a comma after the words "any act" which would have been unnecessary if the words with any property in his possession or under his charge were to be read with the words "any act" as well as with the words "by omitting to take order". It is true that while interpreting the Acts of the British Parliament punctuations are not given any importance but it is due to the fact that before the year 1849 no punctuation normally appeared in the Acts on the role of Parliament in England. Although since 1849 punctuation has been inserted yet inspite of it a view has been taken by some of the judges that the title of the Act, the marginal notes and the punctuation do not form part of the Act but are only temperance exposition (vide page 24, Interpretation of Statutes and General Clauses Acts of Central and states 1954 Edition by N. S. Bindra ). In India, however, punctuation appears in the bills and the Legislature has to take stock not only of the language of the bills but also of the punctuations. It has, therefore, been held that punctuations also be taken into account in interpreting the provisions of an Act of an Indian Legislature. In the case of Secretary of state v. Kalekhan, ILR 37 Mad 113 at p. 115 : (AIR 1914 Mad 502 at p. 503) (A), Sundara Ayyar J. observed as follows :

"there is no doubt authority in English cases for this proposition (Punctuation should not be taken note of in considering the Statute) but no Indian case has been cited to us, and it may be permissible to express a doubt whether the consideration which induced Judges in england to lay down such a rule would be equally applicable in the construction of statutes in this country. " (NOTE: The words within brackets are ours ). "

In the case of Blanche Somerset Taylor v. Charles, George Bleach, ILR 39 Bom 182 : (AIR 1915 Bom 50) (B), while interpreting the 3rd