Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

35. Fourth ground to challenge the Impugned Order was that a Preliminary Enquiry should have been conducted before directing registration of an FIR against a government servant. However, the holding of an inquiry u/s. 340 Cr.P.C. does not arise in the present case as the Ld. CMM had filed a complaint u/s. 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. along with the complaint of the respondent no. 2 for the offence under s. 186 IPC. The Ld. ASJ has rightly observed that the question of Preliminary enquiry under s. 340 Cr.P.C. would have arisen only when the offence referred falls within s. 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. and does not pertain to the offence under s.186 IPC.

23. “Obstructing” the police is not confined to physical obstruction. [See: Sykes v. Director of Public Prosecutions, 1962 A.C. 528]

24. The word ‘obstruction’ in Section 186 of the I.P.C is not confined to physical obstruction only. Threats of violence made in such a way as to prevent the public servant from carrying out his duty might easily amount to an obstruction of the public servant.

25. In Santosh Kumar Jain v. The State reported in 1951 SCC 190, the General Manager of the Jagdishpur Zamindary Co. who were the lessees of a sugar factory, was prosecuted for obstructing the District Magistrate and the Special Officer of Rationing, Patna, in the discharge of their official functions when they went to the factory on 06.12.1947 to remove, 5,000 maunds of sugar which had been seized out of the stock held by the Company pursuant to an order of the Government of Bihar dated 05.12.1947. The named officers went to the Factory on 06.12.1947 to carry out the order of the Government. The Officers were told by the accused General Manager that he would do everything possible to obstruct the removal of the sugar and accordingly it was found that the sugar godowns had been locked and the road leading to them blocked by heaps of coal, firewood and tins placed across, so as to make vehicular traffic impossible. As a result of such obstruction, the officers had to seek the aid of armed police to break open the locks, repair the railway line and clear the road block before the sugar could be removed from the factory. The main defense of the accused was that on a proper construction of Section 3 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary powers) Act, 1946 it was not competent for the Government to pass the order dated 05.12.1947, which was consequently illegal and void and that obstruction to the execution of that order could not constitute an offence under Section 186 I.P.C. The contention was rejected by the Court below and the accused was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of three weeks under Section 186 of I.P.C. The Patna High Court confirmed the conviction and the sentence. The revision came up before this Court. This Court observed that the seizure of the Company's sugar must therefore be regarded as duly authorized and lawful and the accused by obstructing its removal committed an offence under Section 186 of I.P.C.

27. It may be necessary to have a look at Section 133 of the Customs Act, 1962 which is analogous to Section 186 of the I.P.C. Section 133 reads thus: -

“133. Obstruction of officer of customs. — If any person intentionally obstructs any officer of customs in the exercise of any powers conferred under this Act, such person shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.”

28. Now let us compare Section 133 of the Customs Act, 1962 with Section 186 of the I.P.C. Section 186 of I.P.C. reads:

“5. We pass on to consider the next contention of the appellants that the conviction of the appellants under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code is illegal because there is a contravention of Section 195(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code which requires a complaint in writing by the process server or the ASI It was submitted that the charge under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code is based upon the same facts as the charge under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code and no cognizance could be taken of the offence under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code unless there was a complaint in writing as required by Section 195(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. It was argued that the conviction under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code is tantamount, in the circumstances of this case, to a circumvention of the requirement of Section 195(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code and the conviction of the appellants under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code by the High Court was, therefore, vitiated in law. We are unable to accept this argument as correct. It is true that most of the allegations in this case upon which the charge under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code is based are the same as those constituting the charge under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code but it cannot be ignored that Sections 186 and 353 of the 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 not so. The ingredients of the two offences are also distinct. Section 186 of the 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 of the 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 Chapter X of the Indian Penal Code dealing with contempts of the lawful authority of public servants, while Section 353 occurs in Chapter XVI regarding the offences affecting the human body. It is well established that Section 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. [...]