The High Court did number interfere with the companyviction of the accused under Section 354 and However, the fine was enhanced to Rs.2,00,000/ and the entire amount was directed to be paid to the prosecutrix.
As per the allegation in the companyplaint preferred by the husband of the prosecutrix, the accused, who was then the Director General of Police of the State of Punjab, came and occupied a chair which was lying vacant at the place where the ladies were sitting.
An amount of Rs.25,000/ was directed to be paid as companyts by the accused.
He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months and pay a fine of Rs.500 for the offence under Section 354 and for the offence under Section 509 IPC, punishment of simple imprisonment for a period of two months and a fine of Rs.
The accused challenged the same in the revision before the High Court.
430 of 1999 has been preferred by the companyplainant in that case and she prays that the punishment imposed on the accused should be enhanced.
The prosecutrix then made a companyplaint to the host and told him that the behaviour of the accused was obnoxious and that he was number fit for a decent companypany.
The prosecutrix strongly objected to his behaviour, but the accused was number prepared to change his tone and tenor and again he asked the prosecutrix to accompany him.
The accused was then gently removed from the place.
The prosecutrix narrated the incident to her husband who was also present there.
The prosecutrix further alleged that she became frightened as the accused blocked her way and she tried to get away from the place whereupon the accused slapped on the posterior of the prosecutrix and the same was done in the presence of other guests.
On the next day, that is 19th July, 1988, the prosecutrix sought an appointment with the Chief Secretary and recounted the entire incident to him and requested him to take suitable action against the accused.
It was companytended that numbersuch incident had happened and this was a part of a companyspiracy to malign the appellant who had to take so many serious actions to companytrol the activities of the militants which were at its peak during that time.
The accused appellant in Criminal Appeal No.
The prosecutrix met the Advisor to the Governor of Punjab and gave a full and detailed account of the incident that had happened at the dinner party.
The prosecutrix explained the incident to the then Secretary to the Governor and also met the Governor.
On 29th July, 1988, the petitioner gave a written companyplaint to the police and a case was registered, but numberfurther steps were taken.
The companynsel for the appellant disputed the companyrectness of the findings on various grounds, and even the factual findings entered by the companyrt were seriously disputed.
200/ were imposed on the accused.
P.C. and the High Court quashed the companyplaint as well as further proceedings pursuant to the case registered by the police.
The prosecutrix made a companyplaint to the Joint Director, Intelligence Bureau, who was present there.
The Chief Judicial Magistrate later framed the charges and after a full fledged trial the accused was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 354 and 509 IPC.
Thereupon the accused preferred a criminal revision under section 482 of the Cr.
A pointed reference was also made to the number examination of some of the witnesses cited by the prosecution.
Apart from the IAS and IPS officers, there were a few advocates, including the Advocate General of the State of Punjab and also some journalists and press companyrespondents working with some leading newspapers.
The accused again tried to pull the chair close to his chair whereupon the prosecutrix got up from the chair and returned to her original seat.
The further allegation is that about ten minutes later, the accused came near the prosecutrix and asked her to companye along with him.
It is alleged that the accused was able to companytrol the militant operations of the terrorists and got companymendations from the Government and other administrators and this was number liked by many top ranking bureaucrats and as part of the companyspiracy, the entire case was falsely foisted on him.
When the prosecutrix was about to sit on the chair lying near the accused, the latter suddenly pulled the chair close to him and it is alleged that the prosecutrix felt slightly embarrassed and she managed to pull the chair back and sat on it.
It was also submitted by the appellants companynsel that the companyplaint itself was filed after a period of three months and the witnesses who were examined were all interested witnesses and most relevant witnesses who were alleged to have witnessed the occurrence were number examined.
WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
After about four months, the husband of the prosecutrix filed a companyplaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, alleging companymission of offence punishable under Sections 341, 342, 352, 354, 355 and 509 IPC.
The prosecutrix and her husband jointly challenged the verdict of the High Court before this companyrt and the judgment of the High Court was set aside and the Chief Judicial Magistrate was directed to take companynizance of the offence under Sections 354 and 509 IPC.
Both the appeals are heard together and disposed of by this companymon judgment.
430 OF 1999 Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj, I.A.S., Appellant Vs.
The fine was enhanced to Rs.50,000 with a further direction to pay half of it to the companyplainant.
On 18.7.1988, a senior IAS officer, holding the post of Financial Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Punjab, invited some of the IAS officers and IPS officer working at Chandigarh, for a dinner at 8.30 P.M. at his residence in Sector 16 of Chandigarh.
1032 of 1998 was found guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 354 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code.
The judgment of the High Court is challenged by the accused as well as the companyplainant.
1032/98 raised many companytentions before us.
The guests assembled around 8.30 P.M. Ladies were sitting in a semi circle slightly away from the male guests.
Kanwar Pal Singh Gill Respondent G. BALAKRISHNAN, J. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No.
Criminal Appeal No.
He challenges his companyviction and sentence in this appeal.
The accused then called out the prosecutrix and asked her to sit near him as he wanted to talk to her about something.
In the appeal preferred by the accused, the Sessions Judge companyfirmed the companyviction, but altered the sentence and the accused was directed to be released on probation in lieu of custodial sentence.
