Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11. In -- 'In re Chandra Kanta De', 6 Cal 445 (H), Garth C. J. with concurrence of Mcleod J. held that disobedience of an injunction issued by a civil Court is not an offence under Section 188, I. P. C. and that Section 188 applies to orders made by public functionaries for public purposes and not to an order made in a civil suit between a party and a party. The same view was -taken in --'Quinn v. Keshab Chandra Muldierjee', AIR 1949 Cal 349 (I). Similarly, an order made under R. 15 of the Kumaun Nayabad Rules was held in --'Bishen Datt v. Emperor', AIR 1948 All 50 (J) not to be an order promulgated. It was enough for the purposes of the cases that the particular orders were not orders promulgated, and the Courts were not required to give an exhaustive list of orders promulgated. They were not called upon to, and did not, decide whether an order under Section 145(6) is an order promulgated.

18. The Magistrate acquitted Srimati Tugla holding that the order passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate on 6-7-1950 is not an order contemplated under Section 188, I. P. C. According to the Magistrate, Section 188, I. P. C. is confined to orders promulgated by public functionaries for public purposes & the order passed by the Magistrate under Section 145(6), Cr. P. C. was not an order promulgated by a public servant. The Magistrate relied on the cases of AIR 1948 All 50 (J); AIR 1949 Cal 349 (I) and -- 'Saroj v. Emperor', 48 Cri LJ 747 (Cal) (L). It was also held by the Magistrate on the evidence produced in the case that the disobedience, if any, caused no obstruction, annoyance or injury or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury to Sobh Nath and others. Counsel for the State has strenuously contended that the order passed under Section 145(6), Criminal P. C. is an order contemplated by Section 188, I. P. C. Section 188, I. P. C. ready as follows-:

21. The cases relied upon by the court below also do not apply to the facts of the present case. In the case of AIR 1948 All 50 (J) the applicant was prosecuted under Section 188, I. P. C. for the breach of an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in charge of Kumaun Division in the course of proceedings under R. 15 of the Kumaun Nayabad Rules directing the two applicants to demolish and remove a cowshed which they had built on certain 'benap' land. It was held by a single Judge or this Court that orders contemplated by section 188, I. P. C. are orders made by public functionaries for the public interest. It was observed in this case that an order promulgated by a public servant cannot refer to an order made by a public servant in the course of a civil proceeding between two patties.

22. In AIR 1949 Cal 349 (I) it was held that Section 188, I. P. C. applies to orders made by public functionaries and for public purposes and not to an order made in a civil suit between party and party. Section 188, I. P C. had no application to a case of disobedience of an interim injunction issued by the court upon an application of the sublessee restraining the Sheriff and his men from executing the ejectment decree obtained against the lessees. Reference was made in this case to an earlier case of 6 Cal 445 (H).