ABBIRAM SABANI AND 3 ORS. Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision against the appellate judgment of the Assistant Additional Sessions Judge. Cuttack maintaining the conviction of the Petitioners under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code but reducing the sentence passed on them by a 1st Class Magistrate to a fine of Rs. 50/ - each.

(2.) ON 17 -5 -1957 the Chakla Kanungo (p.w. l) went to the house of the Petitioner, Abhiram Sahani with a distress warrant issued in a Certificate Case in which the said Abhiram was the certificate -debtor. He demanded the dues from Abhiram but when the latter refused to pay anything he told him that he would attach his moveable properties. Thereupon it was alleged that the Petitioners said in Oriya:

(3.) WITH respect I am inclined to follow the Calcutta view mentioned above from which the latter Allahabad and Nagpur decisions do not materially differ. Though mere threat or abusive words may not suffice, the question ultimately is whether those words were accompanied by gestures or other signs from which the public servant could reasonably infer that any attempt by him to discharge his duty would be resisted and thereupon, out of prudence, be decides to abstain from discharging his duty. It cannot be said that a public servant should attempt to discharge his duty notwithstanding the threats and should actually receive some blows before he could be said to have been "obstructed". Here the words were used in a taunting manner in a loud tone and the Petitioners showed red eyes. The Kanungo was therefore justified in inferring that any further attempt by him to execute the warrant would be met by physical force resulting in injuries to him. The Petitioners cannot take advantage of the fact that the Kanungo was not rash enough to invite further trouble on himself by persisting in the discharge of his duties even after the Petitioners had made their intention absolutely clear by their words and conduct. I am, therefore, satisfied that there was legal obstruction. The sentence of five has already peen reduced by the Appellate Court and there is no justification for further reduction in the sentence. The petition is dismissed.