RAGHUNATH LAXMAN PARKALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for revision from the conviction of the applicant of an offence under Section 353, Penal Code.

(2.) IT appears from the evidence that the applicant was occupying a house belonging to one Ghorpade in the village of Undavadi, Taluka Baramati, in the Poona District. The Gram Panchayat of the village was entitled to levy a tax of 15 annas under the provisions of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1933, and not knowing the address of the owner of the house who was not living in the village they appear to have issued bills and demand notices directed to the owner but meant for delivery to the applicant. The applicant refused to accept these bills, whereupon they were affixed to the outer door of the house. Even then the tax was not paid, whereupon on 23-2-1954 when the applicant was about to shift to the adjoining village Anjangaon, which is at a distance of four miles, together with all his belongings, the Gram Panchayat Issued a distress warrant under the provisions of the said Act and authorised the Secretary to recover the dues. The Secretary and the other officials of the Gram Panchayat approached the applicant as he was on his way to Anjangaon and asked him to pay the amount, but the applicant refused to pay. Thereupon these servants attempted to attach the applicant's belongings. It appears that at that time the wife of the applicant went and sat upon a gunny bag. The applicant hit the secretary and his son bit the secretary's finger. Even so it appears that the Secretary succeeded in attaching the sheep which was following, and after it was, attached, the applicant was allowed to go. The Secretary however lodged a complaint of the offence, under Section 353 and the applicant was then prosecuted in respect of that offence.

(3.) THE applicant's defence was that the war rant in this case was illegal and secondly it could not be said that the secretary was acting bona fide in the discharge of his duties. He was en titled, therefore, to resist the attachment of his goods, and Section 97, Penal Code, had application. He was entitled to defend his property and if in so defending he used force on the secretary, and if he did not exceed his right of private defence, he could not be convicted.