A.K. Mallu v. Puranachandra Rao & Anr.

Hidayatullah, J. These arc 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 Proced~re 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 in the other appeal) after admonition under s. 562 ( 1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The two appeals have been respec­ tively filed by the complainant who had lodged a complaint agai~st him on which the conviction resulted, and by the accused. In so far as the appe?.1 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 •.he case. As the accused is not re­ presented before us, there is no allcrn;11ivc but to dismiss his appeal in default. As regards the other a~peal, Mr. S. C. Aggarwal contends th::, s. 562 (l-A) is not arplicable to an offence under s. 342 of the Indian Penal Code. His reasons arc: thats. 362 (l-A) is concerned with oiTences concerning property and otfonces not so concerned cannot be subjected to treatment under that section. Section 562 (l-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 ma;, ifit thinks fit, having 1.!gard to t~c age, character, antecedents or physical or 'llental 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 adnwnition." Mr. Agg;uwala contends that the Code has mentioned several offences by description, such as theft, theft in building, dishonest misappropriation and cheating which arc 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 sub­ mission is not ·correct and Mr. Aggarwala is not right in reading the section as he contends. The offences which a1c earlier men­ tioned 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 Jnclian Penal Code" therefore cannot be read ejusdem gencris with the offences which nre mentioned earlier. This clause stands by itself and indicates that all otTcnccs punishable with not more than two years' imprisonment are also capable of MALLU v. PURANACHANDRA (Hidayatul/ah, /.) 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.