Shri Bhoop Singh Tyagi vs State on 13 March, 2002
29. Thirdly, it should be the prosecution also failed to prove the fact beyond
reasonable doubt that the promulgation of prohibitory order Ex. A-1 was
within the knowledge of the accused persons before they gathered at the
spot for protesting. Reference can be taken from the decision of the It
the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bhoop Singh Tyagi vs. State 2002
SCC Online Del 277. It has been observed in that judgment that in order
to secure conviction of the accused for the offence under section
188 IPC, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that (i) there
was an order promulgated by a public servant, (ii) such public servant
was lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, (iii) The accused
necessarily had the knowledge of such order directing them to abstain
from an act or to take certain order with certain property in their
possession or under their management, (iv) The accused have
disobeyed the order having its knowledge, (v) Such disobedience
caused or tended to cause (a) obstruction, annoyance or injury or risk of
it to any person lawfully employed or (b) danger to human life, health
and safety.