HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Revision No.375 of 2059 APPLICANT: Dinesh Chand Sharma, aged about 63 years, S/o Shri Buteshwar Prashad Sharma, R/o Shiv Chowk, Ramsagar .Para, Dhamtari, Ponce Station & Distt. Dhamtari (CG) Versus NON-APPLICANT: State of Chhattisgarh, through the Station House Officer, Police Station Dhamtari (CG) {Criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973} Present: Mr. 'Y.C. Sharma, counsel for the applicant. Mr. Asish Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the State. Single Bench: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Shanna, J ORAL ORDER (1 8-9-2009) 1. This is a criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 17-7-2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Dhamtari in Criminal Appeal No.54/2008 affirming the conviction of the applicant under Sections 294 & 506 Part-ll of the l.P.C. passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhamtari in Criminal Case. No.272/2008 vide judgment dated. 5-12—2008 and modifying the sentence under Section 506 Part-ll of the l.P.C. from S.l. for two months & tine of Rs.500/- to the sentence of till rising of the Court & nne of Rs.15,000/-, in default ofpayment of tine to further undergo R.I. for six months. 2 Judgments of the Courts below are challenged on the ground that the appellate Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in imposing tine and has not considered the most material aspect of the ingredients of the offence under Section 294 of the l.P.C. and thereby committed grave illegality. ' 2 3. l have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment impugned and record of the Courts below. \D" )m . Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhamtari has convicted & sentenced the applicant under Sections 294 & 506 Part-ii of the l.P.C. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class is empowered to impose maximum fine of Rs.10,000/— in terms of Section 29 (2) of the Cr.P.C. The appellate Court was required to correct or rectify the judgment and finding of the Court below, but the appellate Court has exceeded the jurisdiction while imposing the tine of Rs.15,000/- i.e. more than the maximum amount of tine which the Judicial Magistrate First Class was empowered to impose. Learned counsel further argued that if the alleged obscene words said to have been used by the applicant are considered in its face value, same is not sufficient for conviction under Section 294 of the l.P.C. therefore, conviction & sentence of the applicant under Section 294 of the l.P.C. is illegal. . On the other hand, learned State counsel argued that the prosecution has proved this case beyond all reasonable doubts and the applicant has used filthy language with a widow woman. The Court below has rightly convicted & sentenced the applicant. . Para 3 of the evidence of complainant Roopa Sharma (PW-1) reveals that the applicant has used the words “W, W an? staff qt’r, W, Wanvawmmw%nwi%mmWaninsims’andcaughthold of her collar. . ln order to prove the charge under Section 294 of the l.P.C. the prosecution is required to prove that the words or gesture uttered by the applicant/accused were obscene. The test of obscenity is this, whether 3 the tendency of the matter charged as obscene is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such irnmoral influences. If we examine the above words by using the aforesaid parameter, we ‘ find that all those words used by the applicant are the words of condemnation of the complainant who is relative of the applicant, but the applicant has not used those words for making her deprave and corrupt her mind. Therefore, it is difficult to hold that the words uttered by the applicant are sufficient for drawing inference against the applicant that he has used the obscene words, though the words uttered by the applicant are sufhcient for drawing inference that he has intentionally used these words for condemning or intimidating the complainant. ln the circumstances, conviction & sentence of the applicant under Section 294 of the I.P.C. are not sustainable. As regards the question of conviction & sentence of the applicant under Section 506 Part-ll of the I.P.C., evidence adduced on behalf’of the prosecution reveals that most of the witnesses are relatives, but on the ground of interestedness or relation between the parties, their evidence cannot be discarded, rather their evidence requires minute scrutiny. Evidence of the witnesses reveals that the applicant and the complainant are not having good terms, though they are relatives and the applicant has condemned & criminally intimidated the complainant. Evidence ' adduced on behalf of the prosecution is sufncient for drawing inference that the applicant has intimidated the complainant. 10.As regards the question of conviction under Section 506 Part-ll of the I.P.C., admittedly the complainant has lodged report after one month 25 days of the commission of offence. The complainant has specifically deposed in her evidence that she could not promptly lodge the report on . . the advice of her relatives. She has not deposed anything that threat was up to the extent of threat to her life. In para 5 of her evidence she has deposed that she was under fear that any untoward incident may happen to them (End srm aw EH1? m at march s). This evidence is not sufficient for convicting the applicant under Section 506 Part-ll of the l.P.C., but it is sufficient for convicting him under Section 506 Part-l of the l.P.C. 11.As regards the amount of fine imposed upon the applicant, taking into consideration the whole dispute between the families and degree of criminal intimidation, the amount of tine imposed upon the applicant is not in accordance with law, it is excessive and the same has been imposed without application of mind by the Judge concerned. 12.For the foregoing reasons, the revision is partly allowed. Judgment impugned is modified. Conviction & sentence of the applicant under Section 294 of the l.P.C. are hereby set aside and he is acquitted of the said charge. Conviction of the applicant under Section 506 Part-ll of the l.P.C. is altered into conviction under Section 506 Part-l of the l.P.C. and instead of the sentence of tine of Rs.15,000/— and the sentence of till rising of the Court, the applicant is sentenced to pay tine of Rs.3,000/—, in default of payment of fine to undergo R,l. for two months. Excess amount of hne deposited by the applicant shall be refunded to him. sd/- T.P. SHARMA Judge Soma