TILAK RAJ Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been directed against the judgment dated 13.6.2003 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in Crl. Appeal No.9-P/X/2001 affirming judgment dated 16.5.2001 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palampur in Crl. Case No.148-II/97, convicting the petitioner under Section 186 IPC and sentencing him to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.

(2.) The further relevant facts are that on 28.3.1996 at about 7.30 P.M., PW-4 Gurdas Ram the then ASI, Police Station, Palampur alongwith other police officials were at village Rajpur Tanda in connection with investigation of cases of FIR No.101/96 and FIR No.102/96. The aforesaid police officials were conducting the search of the shop of Rumail Chand. The petitioner had appeared on the spot and claimed that he happened to be Pardhan of Gram Panchayat, Rajpur Tanda and asked the witnesses not to sign the recovery memo. The petitioner held out threats that he was the `malik' of the area and threatened the investigating party that he would get their stars/ranks removed by approaching the officers and other authorities. He was persuaded, but he did not desist and asked people to lock up the police officials inside the shop. He put down the shutter of the shop and with great difficulty police officials came out of the shop, they attempted to nab the petitioner, but he ran away from the spot. It was alleged that petitioner had voluntarily obstructed Gurdas Ram public servant to discharge his duties. Gurdas Ram filed complaint in the Court under Section 186 IPC.

(3.) The notice of accusation was put to petitioner for offence punishable under Section 186 IPC; he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution has examined four witnesses and produced some documentary evidence. The statement of petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the prosecution case. The petitioner did not lead any evidence in defence. On conclusion of trial, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate as noticed above on 16.5.2001. In appeal learned Sessions Judge on 13.6.2003 has affirmed the judgment dated 16.5.2001 of learned trial Court. In these circumstances, accused has come in revision in this court.