PETITIONER:
A.K. MALLU
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
PURANACHANDRA RAO & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
16/12/1966
BENCH:
HIDAYATULLAH, M.
BENCH:
HIDAYATULLAH, M.
BHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA
MITTER, G.K.
CITATION:
1967 AIR 1363 1967 SCR (2) 209
ACT:
Code of Criminal Procedure (Act 5 of 1898), s.
562(1.A)–If applies only to offences relating to property.
HEADNOTE:
The accused was convicted of the offence of wrongful
confinement under s. 342 I.P.C., and was released after due
admonition under s. 562(1-A), Criminal Procedure Code.
On the question whether the latter section is concerned only
with offences relating to property and was therefore not
applicable in the present case,
HELD : The clause “any offence under the Indian Penal Code
punishable with not more than two years’ imprisonment” in s.
562(1-A) Cr.P.C., stands by itself and indicates that all
offences punishable with not more than two years’
imprisonment are capable of being dealt with under the
section. The words “any offence under the Indian Penal
Code” cannot be read ejusdem generis with the offences of
theft etc. mentioned earlier in the section. Those offences
had to be specifically mentioned so as to be included in the
section, because, they are offences- punishable with im-
prisonment of more than two years. [310 G-H]
JUDGMENT:
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeals Nos.
65 and 243 of 1964.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated
September 18, 1963 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in
Criminal Appeal No. 385 of 1962.
S. C. Agarwala, for the appellant (in Cr. A. No. 65/64)
and respondent No. 2 (in Cr. A. No. 243/64).
K. R. Chaudhuri, for the appellant (in Cr. A. No. 243/64)
and respondent No. 1 (in Cr. A. No. 65/64).
T. V.R. Tatachari, for respondent No. 2 (in Cr. A. No.
65/64) and respondent No. 1 (in Cr. A. No. 243/64).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Hidayatullah, J. These are two appeals, one (Criminal Appeal
No. 243 of 1964) by one Purna Chandra Rao who has been
convicted under S. 342, Indian Penal Code by the High Court
of Andhra Pradesh but in lieu of the sentence the High Court
released him under s. 562(1-A) of the Criminal Procedure
Code after due admonition, and the other (Criminal Appeal
No, 65 of 1964) by one A. K. Mallu against the judgment of
the Andhra Pradesh High Court releasing the respondent (who
is the appellant
310
in the other appeal) after admonition under s. 562 (1-A) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure. The two appeals have been
respectively filed by the complainant who had lodged a
complaint against him on which the conviction resulted, and
by the accused. In so far as the appeal of the accused is
concerned, we have recorded an order separately which shows
that Mr. K. R. Chaudhary, advocate of this Court appeared
before us and told us that he would like to withdraw from
the case. As the accused is not represented before us,
there is no alternative but to dismiss his appeal in
default.
As regards the other appeal, Mr. S. C. Aggarwal contends
that S. 562 (I -A) is not applicable to an offence under s.
342 of the Indian Penal Code. His reasons are: that s. 562
(1-A) is concerned with offences concerning property and
offences not so concerned cannot be subjected to treatment
under that section. Section 562 (1-A) reads as follows:–
“In any case in which a person is convicted
of theft, theft in a building, dishonest
misappropriation, cheating or any offence
under the Indian Penal Code punishable with
not more than two years’ imprisonment and no
previous conviction is proved against him the
Court before whom he is so convicted may, if
it thinks fit, having regard to the age,
character, antecedents or physical or mental
condition of the offender and to the trivial
nature of the offence or any extenuating
circumstances under which the offence was
committed, instead of sentencing him to any
punishment, release him after due admonition.”
Mr. Aggarwala contends that the Code has mentioned several
offences by description, such as theft, theft in building,
dishonest misappropriation and cheating which are offences
connected with property and, therefore, words “any offence
under the Indian Penal Code” which follow, must be given an
interpretation, confining them to those sections of the
Penal Code where property is either directly or indirectly
involved. In our opinion, this submission is not correct
and Mr. Aggarwala is not right in reading the section as he
contends. The offences which are earlier mentioned in the
section are punishable with imprisonment of more than two
years and, therefore, it was necessary to mention them so as
to include them in addition to offences under the Indian
Penal Code punishable with not more than two years’
imprisonment. The words “any offence under the Indian Penal
Code” therefore cannot be read ejusdem generis with the
offences which are mentioned earlier. This clause stands by
itself and indicates that all offences punishable with not
more than two years’ imprisonment are also capable of
311
being dealt with under s.562 (1-A). Offences against
property are all included in Ch. 17 of the Indian Penal Code
and if it was desired to limit the operation of s. 562(1-A)
to offences against property, it would have been the easiest
thing to have mentioned the Seventeenth Chapter of the Code.
For these reasons, we do not accept the argument.
As a result, both the appeals fail and are dismissed.
V.P.S. Appeals dismissed.
312