NAGPUR JUDICIAL COMMISSIONERS COURT
Subhedar
MAHADEO JAGOBA – Appellant
Versus
SETH GOVARDHANDAS – Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 437 of 1933
Decided on : 15-03-1934
Insulting Words - Municipal Committee Meeting - The court held that the use of insulting words by the Vice-President towards the President during a Municipal Committee meeting constituted an offence under Section 504 I.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The Vice-President used insulting words towards the President during a Municipal Committee meeting, leading to a complaint under Section 504 I.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Vice-President intentionally used insulting words towards the President, leading to a conviction under Section 504 I.P.C.
Issues: The issue revolved around the use of insulting words by the Vice-President towards the President during the Municipal Committee meeting.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the use of insulting words with the intention to provoke a breach of peace constituted an offence under Section 504 I.P.C.
Final Decision: The application for revision was dismissed, upholding the conviction of the Vice-President under Section 504 I.P.C.
Subhedar, A J C—The applicant is the Vice-President of the Muncipal Committee of Sausar while the non-applt. is the President. At a meeting of the Municipal Committee held on 13-1-1933 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 non-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 (sic) 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, 2nd 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-applt. and that consequently the case was covered by Section 504 I.P.C. The result was that the Magistrate convicted the applt. of an offence under Section 504 I.P.C. and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- On appeal the Distt. Magistrate upheld the conviction but reduced the fine to Rs. 15/- only. It is against these orders that the applicant has now come to this Court in revision.
3. Mr. Pradhan, who appeared for the applicant, argued, the first instance, that the word '' Behod '' 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 '' behod '' meant (sic) undoubtedly an offensive expression particularly when it is uttered in the course of a debate.
4. It was next argued on the authority of Emperor v. Philip Rangel 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 '' bethod'' was addressed to the non-applt. only who occupied the responsible and respectable position of the President of the meeting. Having regard to the occasion on which the offensive work were used and the effect it produced immediately upon the non-applt. the inference drawn by the two courts below that they were used by the accused with the intention as insulting the non-applt. knowing that he would be provoked to cause breach of the peace, was quite legitimate and proper. I there-fore hold that the conviction in the present case was quite proper under Section 504 I.P. Code.
5. The result is that the application for. Revision fails and is dismissed.
Final Result : Dismissed
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.