http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

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.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

V.P.S.              Appeals dismissed. 312