Writ petition challenging conviction for mischief where the court held the complaint lacked essential ingredients regarding wrongful loss due to society resolution governing antenna removal.
Order dated 17th May 2003 in Criminal Case No.613 of 1998 quashed; petitioners acquitted; fine refunded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
919_wp_1224_2003.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1224 OF 2003
Girish Rameshwar Mahajan & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Chandrakant Mahadeo Vaidya & Ors. ...Respondents
...
Mr. Pankaj Das for the Petitioners. Mr. H.J. Dedia, APP for the Respondent -State.
CORAM : SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.
DATED : 1st OCTOBER, 2016
P. C. :
The Petitioners herein have challenged order dated 17th May, 2003 whereby the 5th Joint Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Thane, in Criminal Case No.613 of 1998 has convicted them of offence punishable under section 427 of the IPC and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.30 each i/d. SI for seven days.
Megha
1/5
919_wp_1224_2003.doc
advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned APP for the Respondent -State.
Megha
2/5
919_wp_1224_2003.doc
situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits “mischief”.
Megha
3/5
919_wp_1224_2003.doc objections to the said resolution and subsequently Respondent No.1 approached 5th Co-operative Court, Mumbai and challenged circular dated 5th January, 1993 whereby the Society had informed the members about its decision of installing common antenna and discontinue use of individual antenna to restrict the damage to the parapet wall and to prevent leakage in the building. On 30.4.1993 the learned 5th Judge, Co-operative Court vacated the ad-interim relief granted in favour of the complainant and subsequently on 18.12.1993 the Society passed resolution in the Annual General Meeting in respect of the removal of the common antenna. By order dated 31.3.1995 the Co-operative Court restrained the Society from removing the existing antenna. The Society challenged the said order by filing appeal No.213 of 1995 and by order dated 17th October, 1997 the appeal filed by the Society was allowed and the judgment passed by the Judge, Cooperative Court, Mumbai, restraining the Society from removing the antenna was set aside. Thereafter on 8.2.1998 the Society informed the Respondent No.1 that in terms of resolution dated 18th December, 1993 the Society has decided to remove the existing antenna and thereafter the Society shifted the said antenna.
Megha
4/5
919_wp_1224_2003.doc
reveals that the Petitioners, who are the committee members of the society had removed the antenna as per the society resolution to prevent leakage and damage to the parapet-wall. The complaint as well as the evidence does not spell out essential ingredients of the offence of 'cheating' within the meaning of section 425 of the IPC. Consequently, the Petitioners could not have been held guilty of offence under section 427 of the IPC.
(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)
Megha
5/5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal conviction for mischief requires averting intention to cause wrongful loss which was not alleged in the complaint.
Whether removal of antenna pursuant to society resolution satisfied essential ingredients of the offence of mischief.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Girish Rameshwar Mahajan
Chandrakant Mahadeo Vaidya
Anuja Prabhu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
