VIRENDER SHARMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was convicted by the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate on 26.6.2004 in case FIR No.31/2002 police station Chandni Chowk under Sections 186/341/353/355/504 of Indian Penal Code. Vide an order dated 8.7.2004 he was sentenced to RI for 18 months under Section 353 IPC and RI for one year under Section 355 IPC. Both sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Further a compensation of Rs.15,000/- under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. was awarded for the victim of the crime, namely, S.P.Agarwal. No separate sentence was imposed for the offence punishable under Sections 186/34 of the IPC. The court of Additional Sessions Judge upheld the conviction and the sentence vide a judgment dated 6.11.2004. Hence the revision petition.

(2.) The facts of the case are as under: On 4.2.2002 at around 12.05 p.m. the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (in short `MCD') accompanied by his PSO Constable Jai Kishan was passing through the varanda of Commissioner's office at Town Hall when the accused/petitioner, Virender Sharma, met him on the way and suddenly stopped the Commissioner and obstructed him from proceeding further and sprinkled black paint, which he was carrying in a small container, on his face and used abusive language against the him. The petitioner shouted that corruption had become rampant in the MCD during his tenure and consequently his face needed to be blackened. The petitioner was overpowered by the PSO. The statement of the PSO was recorded by the police and on his statement the case was registered. The petitioner was thereafter arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced.

(3.) The petitioner has been convicted by two courts. The trial court record has been received in this court and the evidence on record is perused. The evidence on record leads to a finding of guilt. Three points have been raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist for challenging the order. He says that the criminal case was not maintainable because of the bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C. which requires that for trying offences under Sections 172 to 188 of the IPC cognizance can be taken only on a complaint in writing by the public servant concerned or by a public servant who is superior to the public servant concerned. Secondly, it is submitted that although black paint was sprinkled on the face of the Commissioner of MCD, there was in fact no obstruction to the performance of his duty. In the third place it is submitted that the sentence of 18 months RI for the offence under Section 353 IPC is too harsh and, therefore, should be reduced.