Applicability of the provisions of Section 188 of Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner, in this case, Mrs. Gervase, has been convicted by the Fifth Presidency Magistrate, Madras, under section 188, Indian Penal Code, for disobeying the orders of the Collector of Madras, dated 16th April, 1948 and 22nd April, 1948 (Exhibits 1 and P-4), under section 3(2) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1946, and has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100, or, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a week. She is the land-lady of “Satya Bhavan”, premises No. 29, Sir Mohammad Usman Road, Thyagarayanagar. These premises fell vacant on 31st March, 1948, and the petitioner did not notify the said vacancy as required by section 3(1) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, XV of 1946. On 9th April, 1948, the vacancy was noticed by P.W.1, the Accommodation Inspector for Thyagarayanagar area, and the Accommodation Tahsildar, and the fact was brought to the notice of the Collector of Madras, who, thereupon, sent a memorandum, dated 9th April, 1948, to the petitioner calling upon her to explain why she should not be prosecuted for not notifying the vacancy. The petitioner replied by her letter, dated 12th April, 1948, that she had already intimated the vacancy on 6th April, 1948 and added that if that letter was lost in transit her present letter might be treated as such intimation. On 12th April, 1948, itself, the Collector of Madras got from her an official notification of the vacancy of the said premises. On 16th April, 1948, the Collector, by an order, Exhibit P-1, took over the said premises for allotment to a Government office or official, for non-residential purposes, under section 3(2) of Act XV of 1946, and a copy of the order was duly served on the petitioner. The Collector, by his subsequent order, dated 22nd April, 1943, Exhibit P-4, allotted the premises to the Commissioner of Police for locating the Thyagarayanagar Police Station. This order was duly served on the petitioner, who admitted personal knowledge of it. She wrote a letter on 21st April, 1948, to the Collector stating that she required the premises for her own occupation, and for her relatives, and requesting the Collector’s permission to allow her to do so. By his letter, dated 5th May, 1948, the Collector refused her request and directed her to hand over possession of the premises to the Commissioner of Police, as per his previous order, on pain of proceedings being taken against her. This too was served on her. On 6th May, 1948, she informed the Collector that she and her people had occupied the said premises, and that it could not be given to the police. She also appealed to the Government against the Collector’s orders, but the Government, by their memorandum, dated 24th May, 1948, intimated to her that she should comply with the Collector’s orders and that she would be prosecuted if she refused to do so. The Collector also wrote to her to the same effect on 4th June, 1948, drawing her attention to the Government’s order. The petitioner acknowledged the receipt of these orders. The Collector heard, later on, from the Commissioner of Police, that the petitioner had refused to hand over possession of the premises to P.W.2, the Sub-Inspector of Police deputed by him, for taking over the premises and locating the Police Station. The petitioner wrote to the Collector that she objected to the premises being used for the purpose of a Police Station but added, that, if she was assured that it would not be used for that purpose, she had no objection to deliver possession of it to the Police Department. She, later on, flatly refused to hand over the premises. She had previously intimated to the Collector that the premises were fit only for non-residential purposes, like an office, as it had been made fit for such purposes though it had been used for residential purposes, before, and that Dhiran & Co., Film Producers, had once occupied the premises for non-residential purposes. But, of course, she did not lik