Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. The offence under which the accused is charged with is u/sec. 186/353 IPC.

Section 186 IPC reads as under. :-

Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or with both

11. It is important to mention here that essential requirements to proceed u/sec. 186 IPC is Section 195 Cr.P.C. which lays down the procedure and as per law, it is stated that any such provision which is contained under chapter X of Indian Penal Code, regarding contempt of lawful authority of which Section 186 IPC is relevant Section. The requirement of Section 195 Cr.P.C is to be taken care before proceeding any further. Perusal of the record reveals that one complaint in the form of Section 195 Cr.P.C is filed by the IO alongwith the charge sheet. It is a complaint u/sec. 195 Cr.P.C. which is filed by the Manager R.K.Jain , Delhi Transport Corporation . It is containing the list of witnesses. Under this complaint which is filed by the authority higher about the complainant is contained a prayer that action be taken against the accused as he had obstructed the complainant and other public servant in discharge of their duties. In the charge sheet so filed by the accused it is further stated during alleged incidence while obstructing the public servant in discharging of his duties , accused also assaulted the complainant and Govt. Public Servant . Thus, Section 353 IPC was also attracted against the accused. Section 353 IPC further reads as under :-

14. Section 186 IPC is more or less on the same footing, as stated above, the essential ingredient of Section 186 IPC are more or less the same that

1. There was obstruction

2. Obstruction must be by the accused

3. Obstruction must be voluntarily

4. The obstruction must be by a public servant

5. The obstruction must be in discharge of his i.e. Public servant's public functions.

15. However there is one difference between these two Sections that Section 186 IPC is recorded under Chapter X of the Indian Penal Code containing the Provisions of committing the Contempt of Lawful Authority or Public Servant where Section 353 IPC is covered under chapter XVI which is containing the offence affecting the human body. Section 186 IPC is non cognizable and requirement of Section 185 IPC is mandatory in taking cognizance for the alleged offence under this Section however, Section 353 IPC is cognizable and no such pre-requisite requirement is u/sec. 195 Cr.P.C. is required for taking cognizance under this Section.

Section 186 provides for the punishment for the contempt of the lawful authority of the public servant and Section 353 IPC as well as Section 332 IPC contained the punishment for the assault committed by public servant who is discharging in his public duties. It has been observed in these cases as well as by Hon'ble Suprme Court of India "AIR 1953 Supreme Court 293 "that it is the duty of the Court to construe the section according to the language used. It is not for the court to speculate as to what the legislature should or might have said. Regard could only be had to what the legislature has said. The legislature intended a particular form of complaint or previous sanction for the prosecution of those of the certain specified offences only. There is nothing in the section to suggest that the prosecution in respect of other offences based on the same facts could not be instituted except by observing the provisions of S. 195. it has also to be borne in mind that the provisions of that section cannot be evaded by restoring to devices or camouflages. The test whether there is a evasion of the section or not is whether the facts disclose primarily and essentially an offence for which a complaint of the court or of the public servant is required . In other words, the provisions of the section cannot be evaded by the device of charging a person with an offence to which that section does not apply and then convicting him of an offence to which it does upon the ground that such latter offence is a minor offence of the same character, or by describing the offence as being one punishable under some other section of the Indian Penal Code, through in truth and substance the offence falls in the category of sections mentioned in S. 195 Cr.P.C. Merely by changing the garb or label of an offence which is essentially an offence covered by the provisions of S. 195 prosecution for such an offence cannot be taken cognizance of by misdescribing it or by putting a wrong label on it. 18 Thus it is clear from the above cited authorities for reference as well as from the heading of these two Sections u/sec. 186 IPC as well as u/sec. 353 IPC that both these offences are cognizable u/sec. 353 IPC & non-cognizable under Section 186 IPC in which requisite requirement u/sec. 195 Cr.P.c. Will be pre- requisite for Section 186 IPC and if it is not initiated upon the complaint of a public servant in the form of Section 195 Cr.P.C. no proceedings can be initiated for Section 186 IPC. However if all these requirements are not taken care of regarding Section 186 IPC, it does not put any bar for proceeding under other Sections of similar in nature like u/sec. 353 Cr.P.c. as it attracted here in this case where there are specific everments to that effect and the first element is also existing . In the present case however the IO had taken care of the requirement of Section 195 Cr.P.c. . It is however important to mention here and it is also fundamental rule of law that the technicalities of law will not come in the way of imparting justice pith and the substance of the facts should be considered accordingly. . The nature of the circumstances should be seen rather than construing any of the flaw technically. Thus, so far as Section 186 IPC is concerned , the IO has filed one complaint duly given by the public servant , alongwith the final report u/sec. 173 Cr.P.C. , therefore, the technical requirement u/sec. 195 Cr.P.C. For taking cognizance u/sec. 186 IPC is taken care of. 19 PW 2 Complainant Om Parkash and PW 3 Rati Ram ATS has stated in clear words that they were employed by DTC and are public servant as defined u/sec. 21 IPC. This fact is not disputed that an employee of DTC is the covered within the definition of public servant as defined u/sec,. 21 IPC. It is further stated by PW 2 and PW 3 that on that particular day i.e. On 21.10.97 they alongwith other public officials were on their regular duty for checking and during their duty hours they reached near Azad Pur Mudrika bus stand . Thus, both these Pws have shown that during that particular time and place they both were discharging their public duties , they saw one bus was stationed near the bus stand and no passenger was found therein and it is conductor Om Prakash who was present in the bus and when Wavel Form was demanded from him and it was checked , it was further found that no entry of ticket of Rs. 4 was found therein . It is further stated by PW 2 and PW 3 in clear words that upon raising suspicion regarding the conduct of the accused of not putting any entry in the wavel form regarding ticket of Rs. 4/- he was enquired and was asked to sit in the jeep. It was standing nearby, the accused suddenly retaliated and started arguments with the complainant and other public officials. He also torn the Wavel Form which was in the possession of PW 2. Accused also slapped the complainant Om Prakash. The torn Wavel Form is also placed on record in the judicial file which is Ex P 1 and the seizure memo of Wavel Form is Ex. PW 2/B. 20 In these circumstances the prosecution while examining this witness have shown that :

3. In the said act committed by the accused he also torn the wavel form and slapped the complainant.

22 It is further important to mention here that Section 186 IPC requirement of requisite sanction of 195 IPC which had been taken care of by the Manager R.K.Jain DTC filed alongwith the charge sheet as well as specific everments pertaining to Section 353 IPC and essential requirement is also established by the prosecution against the accused. In the light of these facts and circumstances and the reasons so given, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has been able to establish the liability of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and nothing to the contrary has been shown by the accused persons on record that prosecution witnesses have supported the story of the prosecution. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that accused has committed the offence u/sec. 186 IPC as well as 353 IPC i.e, committing contempt of lawful authority and assaulting and detering public servant from discharging his duties . . Thus accused Om Parkash S/o Dal Chand is convicted u/sec. 186 and 353 IPC . Arguments on sentence shall be heard separately.