1. This criminal reference is made by the District Magistrate, Ratlam, recommending that the conviction of accused Hukumchand, No. 2 Bapulal and no. 3 Ratanlal, by the First Class Magistrate Ratlam under Ss. 323 & 504 be set aside. The short facts are that the complainant Chandmal filed a complaint under Ss. 323, 352, 504, 500, 506 and 109, Penal Code against 10 persons consisting of the entire family. The trial Court proceeded under Ss. 323 and 504 and all the accused were discharged except Hukumchand, Bapulal and Ratanlal—Hukumchand was convicted under S. 323, Penal Code and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 10 and Bapulal and Ratanlal are convicted under S. 504 and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 10 each.
2. I have gone through the order of reference and it appears to me that the reference must be accepted.
3. The reference is also supported by the Public Prosecutor. It appears to me that this complaint is not at all well founded. It is alleged that the offence took place on 9th June 1917 but the complaint was filed on 18th Juna 1947. There is some delay is filing the complaint. It appears that the complaint is against the whole family. There is no reference in the complaint about accused Hukumchand, Bapulal Page: 26and Ratanlal having abused the complainant. The allegation is against Raji and Mankuwar but they have been discharged. The evidence adduced is not such as to inspire confidence. It is a case of mere vulgar abuse and as held in Philip Rangel…Applicant; v. Emperor…Opposite Party., A.I.R (19) 1932 Bom. 193 : (33 Cr. L.J 463), ‘mere vulgar abuse’ does not amount to an insult or offence under S. 504. Even if it is a technical offence under S. 504, the matter is covered by S. 95 barring cognizance by Courts in view of its triviality.
4. I, therefore, accept the reference and set aside the order of conviction and sentence. The fine, if paid, be refunded.
5. Reference accepted.