Intentional insult leading to breach of the peace constitutes an offence under Section 504, I.P.C.

Subhbdar, A J C—The applicant is the Vice President of the Municipal Committee of Sausar while the non-applioant is the President. At a meeting of the Municipal Committee held on 13th January 1933 one of the important matters for consideration was the question whether the dismissal by the President of a school master, who was the man of the Vice President, was just and proper. But before this matter came up for discussion the Vice President and the other members urged that the no-confidence motion pending against the President should be taken up for discussion first. Thereupon a hot debate ensued in the course of which it was alleged that the Vice President addressing the President used the words of which the official translation is ''why do you explain like a fool.'' As soon as these words were uttered the President dashed his chair down on the ground and left the meeting which ended without discussing any matter.

2. On these facts the President lodged a complaint against the Vice President in the Court of the Tahsildar and Magistrate Second Class, Sausar, Under Section 504, I.P.C. The defence of the applicant was that he did not use these words to the complainant. On the evidence adduced in the case the trying Magistrate however held that the applicant had used the insulting words to the non-applicant and that consequently the case was covered by Section 504, I.P.C. The result was that the Magistrate convicted the applicant of an offence Under Section 504, I.P.C., and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 50. On appeal the District Magistrate upheld the conviction but reduced the fine to Rs. 15 only. It is against these orders that the applicant has now come up to this Court in revision. Mr. Pradhan, who appeared for the applicant, argued, in the first instance, that the word ''behoda'' is only a term of abuse which conveys no insult to the person to whom it is addressed. The dictionary meaning of the word is absurd, foolish or immoral and the applicant himself in his examination stated that the word ''behoda'' meant. It is undoubtedly an offensive expression particularly when it is uttered in the course of a debate.

3. It was next argued on the authority of Emperor v. Philip Rangel, 1932 AIR(Bom) 193 that the use of the aforesaid expression only showed bad manners of the applicant who used it but did not amount to an intentional insult within the meaning of Section 504, I.P.C. But the Bombay case is easily distinguishable on facts. There the words used by the accused were not addressed to any one in particular and it was therefore rightly held that they could not have been intentionally used, to insult any one. Here on the concurrent findings of the two Courts below the word ''behoda'' was addressed to the non-applicant only who occupied the responsible and respectable position of the President of the meeting. Having regard to the occasion on which the offensive words were used and the effect it produced immediately upon the non-applicant, the inference drawn by the, two Courts below that they were used by the accused with the intention of insulting the non-applicant knowing that he would be provoked to cause breach of the peace, was quite legitimate and proper. I therefore hold that the conviction in the present case was quite proper Under Section 504, I.P.C. The result is that the application for revision fails and is dismissed.

Final Result : Dismissed