High CourtsSingle Bench(1950) 04 MAD CK 0035

In Re: K.J. Verghese

Madras High Court · Decided on 21 April 1950 · Citation: AIR 1950 Mad 789 : (1950) 63 LW 1016 : (1942) 55 LW 1016 : (1950) 2 MLJ 199

HON’BLE JUDGES
Somasundaram, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No. 1228 and Cri. Revision Petition No. 1159 of 1949

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

12 paragraphs · 232 words

Somasundaram, J.—The petitioner has been found guilty by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Coonoor, for an offence u/s 3(12) , Madras

Towns Nuisance Act and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 20.

2.

Section 3 (12) deals with disorderly or indecent behaviour in any public place. The indecent behaviour that is attributed to the petitioner who is a

Municipal Councillor is that while going on a public road he uttered in loud tones the following words:

It appears some fellow--let his mother and wife be ravished--informed the Sub-Inspector that Bahadur Khan (referring to the second accused)

should be arrested. Can they--fellows who ravish mothers--pluck a hair.

The question now is whether this will constitute indecent behaviour.

3.

It is contended by Mr. Kasturi that it is at best only abusive or indecent words uttered and this does not constitute behaviour. The term

behavior ""is not defined. But the Oxford Dictionary gives the meaning as deportment or manners. Uttering these words in public undoubtedly is

bad manners and though it may constitute bad behaviour, it is doubtful if it is indecent behaviour within the meaning of that term in Clause (12) of

Section 3. In my opinion the question is not free from doubt and the benefit of that doubt must go to the accused.

4.

The conviction and sentence are set aside and the accused is acquitted. The fine, if paid, will be refunded.