# A.K. MALLU v. PURANACHANDRA RAO & ANR

- **Citation:** [1967] 2 S.C.R. 309
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1966-12-16
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeals Nos. E 65 and 243 of 1964
- **Bench:** M. Hidayatullah, V. Bhargava, G. K. Mitter
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/a-k-mallu-v-puranachandra-rao-anr-3951
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

c
D
Code of Criiainal Procedure (Act 5 of 1898), s. 562(1.A)--lf applies
only to offences relating to property.
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-AJ, Criminal Procedure Code.
On the question whelher the latter section is concerned only with
offences relating to· propc.rty and was therefore not applicable in the present
case,
HELD : The clause "any offence ur.dcr the Indian Penal Code punishable with not more than two years' imprisonment" ins. 562(\-A) Cr.P.C.,
stands by itself and indicates that nll offences punishable \\1ith not more
than h·VO years' imprisonment arc capable of being dealt \vith under the
section.
The words "ariy offence under the Indian Penal Code" cannot
be read ejusdeni generls with the offences of theft etc. mentioned earlier
in. the section.
Those offences had to be specifically mentioned so as to
he included in the section, because, they arc offences punishable with im·
prisonment of more than two years. [310 G-HJ

## Text

A
A.K. MALLU
v.
PURANACHANDRA RAO & ANR.
December 16, 1966
B
(M. HIDAYATULLAH, V. BHARGAVA AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.]
c
D
Code of Criiainal Procedure (Act 5 of 1898), s. 562(1.A)--lf applies
only to offences relating to property.
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-AJ, Criminal Procedure Code.
On the question whelher the latter section is concerned only with
offences relating to· propc.rty and was therefore not applicable in the present
case,
HELD : The clause "any offence ur.dcr the Indian Penal Code punishable with not more than two years' imprisonment" ins. 562(\-A) Cr.P.C.,
stands by itself and indicates that nll offences punishable \\1ith not more
than h·VO years' imprisonment arc capable of being dealt \vith under the
section.
The words "ariy offence under the Indian Penal Code" cannot
be read ejusdeni generls with the offences of theft etc. mentioned earlier
in. the section.
Those offences had to be specifically mentioned so as to
he included in the section, because, they arc offences punishable with im·
prisonment of more than two years. [310 G-HJ
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal
Appeals Nos.
E
65 and 243 of 1964.
F
G
H
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated
September 18, 1963 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Cirminal
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) :rnd
respondent No. I (in Cr. A. No. 65/64).
T.V.R. Tatachari, for respondent No. 2 (in Cr. A. No. 65/64)
and respondent No. I (in Cr. A. No. 243/64).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
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
310
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1967] 2 S.C.R.
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 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 represented 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 submission is not ·correct and Mr. Aggarwala is not right in reading
the section as he contends. The offences which a1c 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 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
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
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.