Patna High Court
Jagarnath Singh vs Emperor on 4 July, 1924
Equivalent citations: 82IND. CAS.165, AIR 1925 PATNA 183
JUDGMENT Kulwant Sahay, J.
1. The petitioner has been convicted by the Deputy Magistrate of Jamui under Sections 186 and 189 of the Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced to simple imprisonment for fifteen days and to pay a fine of Rs. 50 under Section 186; and simple imprisonment for six weeks and to pay a fine of Rs. 50 under Section 189, Indian Penal Code.. His appeal has been summarily dismissed under Section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned District Magistrate and an application for revision has also been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge.
2. The facts are shortly these. It appears that one Mr. Christian obtained a decree for money against the petitioner. He took out execution of the decree and applied for the arrest of the petitioner in execution of the decree. The warrant of arrest was issued by the Munsif and made over to the peon Ajodhya Singh. Ajodhya Singh reported, that he went to the place of the accused, showed him the warrant, arrested him and demanded the payment of the decretal amount and failing payment, lie directed him to follow him. The accused, however, refused the Court's order to pay the amount and cried out "(Jo out, I do not obey the Court's order and I would not pay the amount". The peon became frightened and left the place. The Munsif thereupon lodged a complaint under Sections 186 and 189 of the Indian Penal Code, and the accused was placed on his trial and convicted and sentenced as stated above. The finding of the Trying Magistrate is that the peon was obstructed in the discharge of his duty and he was also threatened and deterred from discharging his duty as a public servant.
3. The first point taken by the learned Vakil for the petitioner is that the District Magistrate "was wrong in dismissing the appeal summarily without writing' out a judgment. Now, Section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowered the District Magistrate to dismiss the appeal summarily and it is not necessary that in dismissing an appeal under Section 421 the Magistrate should write out a judgment as required by Section 367 of the Code. The learned Vakil relies upon the case of Gurubari Behara v. Emperor 43 Ind. Cas. 439 : 2 P.L.J. 695 : 4 P.L.W. 153 : 19 Cr. L.J. 151. That case is a clear authority for the proposition that an Appellate Court is not required by law to write a judgment when dismissing an appeal summarily. It is, no doubt, necessary that in dismissing the appeal summarily the Appellate Court should give reasons for dismissing the same. A mere order to the effect that the appeal is summarily dismissed, without giving any reason whatsoever would be, according to the authorities, bad in law. In the present case the Magistrate gives his reasons for dismissing the appeal summarily; and, having regard to the fact that the issue for decision in the case was a very simple issue of facts and there were no complications in the case, I am not prepared to say that the dismissal of the appeal under Section 421 was in the present case bad in law.
4. The second point taken by the learned Vakil is that upon the finding arrived at, the utmost that can be said is that only one offence was committed and the conviction for two offences under Sections 186 and 189 was not justifiable. In my opinion, this contention is sound. What has been found is that the petitioner refused to follow the peon when he arrested him and threatened to use violence towards him." In my opinion, the whole occurrence amounts to one offence under Section 189, Indian Penal Code, and two separate convictions under Sections 186 and 189 are bad in law. I would, therefore set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 186, Indian Penal Code.
5. As regards the conviction under Section 189, it has been contended that the facts found do not amount to an offence under Section 189. I am, however, of opinion that the Trying Magistrate was right in his finding that the facts do amount to an offence under Section 189. As regards the sentence, however, the learned Trying Magistrate has observed that he would have let off the accused with a punishment of fine only; but, having regard to the fact that the accused was an elderly man and has lived to an age to know that laws are to be obeyed and debts to be honoured, he thought that a severe sentence was required. I am of opinion that the fact of his being an elderly man does not aggravate the nature of the offence. I am informed that the petitioner has already undergone imprisonment for more than three weeks.
6. Having regard to the circumstances of the case I am of opinion that the sentence already undergone is sufficient to meet the ends of justice, I, therefore, reduce the sentence of imprisonment under Section 189, Indian Penal Code, to the period already under gone. The sentence of fine under Section 189 will stand. The fine imposed under Section 181), Indian Penal Code if paid, will be refunded.