Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)
Jayaseeli vs State By on 2 February, 2010 cites

Durgacharan Misra vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 27 August, 1987

9. If the evidence on record available in this case is perused in the light of the aforesaid legal principles laid down by the Apex Court, it has to be pointed out that the ingredients of the offence under Section 353 IPC are not made out. When, as pointed out above, the prosecution has not proved beyond doubt, the K.MOHAN RAM, J., srk tearing of the tape, FMB and the Settlement Register, it could be held that there was no use of criminal force. Similarly, it is not the case of the prosecution itself that the petitioner assaulted P.W.1 to prevent him from doing his official duty. However, it has to be pointed out that the prosecution has not established that force was used intentionally to P.W.1 without P.W.1's consent in order to commit an offence or with an intention or with the knowledge that the use of force will cause injury, fear or annoyance against P.W.1 against whom the force is used. When there is absolutely no evidence that the petitioner either assaulted P.W.1 or used criminal force to prevent him from discharging his official duty, it cannot be said that the ingredients of the offence under Section 353 IPC are made out. This legal aspect has not at all been considered by both the Courts below. Both the Courts below have not properly understood the ingredients of the offence under Section 353 IPC itself and therefore this Court is compelled to interfere with the judgments of the Courts below.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 267 - K J Shetty - Full Document
1