Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. IO conducted the investigation. After completion of investigation, the present chargesheet was filed u/s 186/353/120B/34 IPC & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act. Cognizance of offence was taken and accused persons were summoned to face trial. The copy of chargesheet was supplied under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

4. After giving opportunity to State as well as accused persons for making submissions on charge, a charge for offence u/s 186/353/120B/34 IPC was framed against accused Vikas Dabas @ Vicky, charge for offence u/s 186/353/120B/34 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act was framed against accused Ravi @ Monia, Pankaj and Nizam, an additional charge for the offence u/s 174-A State Vs. Ravi @ Monia & Ors.

33. In the present case, accused Ravi @ Monia, Vikas Dabas @ Vicky, Pankaj and Nizam have also been charged for the offence punishable U/s 186/353/34 IPC. It is needless to mention that in order to bring home the guilt in respect of offence punishable U/s 186 IPC, the prosecution was required to prove the following ingredients:

State Vs. Ravi @ Monia & Ors.
FIR No.40 of 2013 P.S. Crime Branch Page No. 19 of 22
a). That the complainant and/or any other aggrieved person was / were public servants within the mean-

ing of Section 21 IPC.

b). Said public servants were performing their offi- cial duty at the time of incident; and

c). Those public servants were obstructed or pre- vented from discharging their public functions by the accused.

34. According to the Code of Criminal Procedure the cog- nizance of the offence punishable U/s 186 is barred except on a complaint U/s 195 Cr. P.C. In the present case complaint U/s 195 Cr. P.C. had been moved, the same is Ex PW 7/1. The record shows that the cognizance of offence punishable U/s 186 IPC was not taken on the basis of the complaint U/s 195 Cr. P.C and the complaint given by the concerned ACP u/s 195 C.P.C was simply tagged with the charge-sheet. Even otherwise, the same was never filed separately by the concerned ACP before this court and thus the cognizance of the offence punishable u/s 186 IPC has been taken on the basis of the chargesheet and not the complaint of the ACP u/s 195 Cr.P.C. In the circumstances in my opinion the cognizance of the offence punishable U/s 186 IPC is bad. The accused persons are therefore acquitted of the offence punishable U/s 186 of IPC.

35. So far as the offence punishable U/s 353 IPC concerned, it is distinct from the offence punishable U/s 186 of IPC. Acquittal U/s 186 IPC does not mean that the offence punishable U/s 353 IPC also goes. The constituent facts of both the offences are dis- tinct. Offence U/s 353 IPC is committed if the accused uses crim- State Vs. Ravi @ Monia & Ors.

FIR No.40 of 2013 P.S. Crime Branch Page No. 20 of 22 inal force or assaults a public servant in order to deter the public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant whereas the offence punishable U/s 186 IPC is committed if the accused obstructs the public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant. Obstruction may be with or without assault. In the circumstances in my opinion 353 IPC is a distinct offence. In having this opinion I am supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited as Durgacharan Naik V. State of Orissa AIR 1966 SC 1775.