Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Patkar, J.

8. I agree. The facts have been fully stated in the judgment of the lower Court. The concurrent finding of both the Courts is that the accused obstructed the Range Forest Officer, when he was searching for Indore rafters in the depot of the accused. The question which arises for decision in this case is, whether the Range Forest Officer was acting in the discharge of his public function within the meaning of Section 186, Indian Penal Code. The public functions mean legal and legitimately authorized public functions and do not cover any act which a public functionary may take upon himself to perform. Cf. Lilla Singh v. Queen-Empress (1894) I.L.R. 22 Cal. 286 and Queen-Empress v. Tulsiram (1888) I.L.R. 13 Bom. 168. It was held in Emperor v. Shivdas Omkar (1912) 15 Bom. L.R. 315 that the question whether the public servant was acting in the discharge of his public function is a question of fact and not a matter of the public servant's intentions. His intentions may be perfectly honest, but if in fact and in law the functions in discharge of which he is obstructed are not public functions, no offence can be committed under Section 186. Reference was made to Section 99 of the Indian Penal Code, but no offence other than the obstruction to the public servant was committed in this case, and the right of private defence was not set up on behalf of the accused. I do not think that Section 99 has any relevance to the question we are considering in the present case. The question in this case is whether the functions which the Range Forest Officer was performing fell within or outside the jurisdiction or authority, which he as a public servant possessed. The obstruction, in this case was to the Range Forest Officer taking possession of the Indore rafters in the depot of the accused. The Ranger was authorized to take possession of the rafters under Section 82 of the Indian Forest Act 1878, and he could only do so, if duty was payable in respect of the rafters. The question, therefore, is whether duty was leviable on the rafters found in the depot of the accused, The duty is imposed under Section 39 of the Indian Forest Act on timber and other produce