SHANKARAPPA SANGAPPA Vs. ALLISAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition the order dt. 5-1-1976 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sindgi, in Crl Case No.254 of 1975, acquitting respondent 1, who was the accused therein, of the offences under Ss.342, 353, 323 and 504 of IPC, on the ground that the provisions of S.195 of the CrlPC, 1973 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Code), had not been complied with, is challenged.

(2.) The necessary facts may be narrated briefly as follows: The petitioner, who was working as an employee of the village panchayat commitete of Jaiwad, had, on the instructions of the village accountant Sri G.S.Kajgar, gone to collect levy jowar when respondent 1-accused obstructed him in discharging his duties, and in the course of obstructing him, abused him, wrongfully confined him and assaulted him. The petitioner complained to the police and the police after investigation into the case, filed a charge- sheet alleging that respondent 1-accused had committed offence punishable under Ss.342, 353, 323 and 504 of IPC. The Magistrate framed charges under Ss.342, 353, 323 and 504 of IPC on 29-7-1975. Later an application was tiled On behalf of respondent 1-accused contending that as the petitioner had not filed a complaint as per the provisions of S. 195 of the Code, the Court had no jurisdiction tc take cognizance of the offences because the offence under S.353 of IPC is no other than the offence under S.186 of IPC and as such respondent 1-accused was entitled to be acquitted.

(3.) On behalf of respondent 1-accused, reliance was placed on the decision of the Patna High Court in Janki Prasad Tibrewal v. State of Bihar 1975 (1) CrlLJ. 575. The learned Magistrate took the view that the facts and circumstances found in the said case were similar to the facts and circumstances in the case on hand, and proceeded to pass the order acquitting Respt 1-accused. The facts in Janki Prasad Tibrewal's cased) were that a warrant of arrest was issued against Janki Prasad Tibrewal and the Dalpati-Shri Ram Lakhan Sharma was entrusted with the warrant for execution. Shri Ram Lakhan Sharma went to Janki Prasad Tibrewal to execute the warrant. Janki Prasad Tibrewal became very much annoyed, abused Shri Ram Lakhan Sharma in filthy language and tore away his uniform and prevented him from executing the warrant of arrest. Shri Ram Lakhan Sharma went to the Mukhia. who had entrusted the warrant to him, and both of them again went to Janki Prasad Tibrewal to execute the warrant. Janki Prasad Tibrewal again obstructed these two persons from executing the warrant and in that process assaulted them. Information was lodged to the concerned police station and the police after investigation submitted charge-sheet alleging-offences under Ss.323, 324 and 353 of the IPC, and the Magistrate took cognizance of the said offences. It was contended that the offence under S. 186 of the IPC and the offence under S.353 of the IPC were the same and as such by merely mentioning that the offence was under S.353 of the IPC, a device for evading the application of the provisions of S.195 of the Code had been adopted and, therefore, Janki Prasad Tibrewal and others were tc be acquitted as the complaint, as required by the provisions of S.195 of the Code, had not been filed and the Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offences. This contention was upheld after referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Basir-ul-Huq v. State of WB AIR. 1953 SC 293.