Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: ipc.186 in Titled "Durgacharan Naik And Ors vs State Of Orissa",1966 Air 1775, on 3 November, 2014Matching Fragments
"It is true that most of the allegations in this case upon which the charge under Section 353, Indian Penal Code is based are the same as those constituting the charge under s. 186, Indian Penal Code but it cannot be ignored that section 186 and 353, Indian Penal Code relate to two distinct offences and while the offence under the latter section is a cognizable offence, the one under the former section is State v. Harphool Singh etc. U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC FIR No. 412/98 PS Paschim Vihar 16/23 not so. The ingredients of the two offences are also distinct. Section 186, Indian Penal Code is applicable to a case where the accused voluntarily obstructs a public servant in the discharge of his public functions but under Section 353, Indian Penal Code the ingredient of assault or use of criminal force while the public servant is doing his duty as such is necessary. The quality of the two offences is also different. Section 186 occurs in Ch. X of the Indian Penal Code dealing with Contempt of the lawful authority of public servants, while s. 353 occurs in Ch. XVI regarding the offences affecting the human body. It is well-established that s. 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not bar the trial of an accused person for a distinct offence disclosed by the same set of facts but which is not within the ambit of that section."
30. The above stated principle of law was reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme court in "Pankaj Aggarwal VS. State of Delhi", LAWS(SC)-2001-3-49, wherein it was held:-
"In view of the judgment of this Court in AIR 1966 SC 1775 where the court has analysed the provisions of Section 353,Indian Penal Code and 186,Indian Penal Code and held that the two are distinct offences and the quality of the offence is also different, we are of the opinion that judgment of the Punjab High Court is not correct in State v. Harphool Singh etc. U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC FIR No. 412/98 PS Paschim Vihar 17/23 law and has taken a view contrary to the law laid down by this Court. What has been stated earlier in the aforesaid case in relation to the provisions of Section 353,Indian Penal Code would equally apply to the provisions of Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code."
31. On the basis of above stated landmark judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court it has been established that non filing of formal complaint under section 195 Cr.P.C will not vitiate proceeding in respect of offence under section 332 and 353 of IPC. However accused is entitled for acquittal for offence under section 186 IPC, as the formal complaint under section 195 Cr.P.C has not been proved on record.
32.Now the court shall proceed to record its findings qua the remaining offence.
41.The accused persons have failed to show why the complainant and other staff members would falsely implicate them in the present matter. The court does not see any reason for the complainant to depose falsely against the accused persons and thus disbelieve the testimony of the prosecution witnesses including the complainant.
42.In view of the above discussion, the court is of the view that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Harphool, Santosh, Gurmeet Singh and Jaggi stands convicted under Section 353/332/34 Indian Penal Code. However, the accused persons are acquitted for the offence under Section 186 Indian Penal Code.