KAMLA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference, made by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi and Chamba, Sessions Division. Shri Dhani Ram, a Bailiff in the Civit Nazarat, Mandi, had submitted an application to the Senior Subordinate Judge, Mandi that he had been obstructed, by the petitioner, in the discharge of his public functions, while he was executing a warrant of attachment on the 17th December, 1963. The Senior Subordinate Judge forwarded the application to the Superintendent of Police Mandi, with the request, that enquiry be made in the matter and necessary action be taken. As the of tence, disclosed by the allegations, in the application, fell, under Section 186 I. P. C. which is a non-cognizable offence, the Superintendent of Police wrote to the? Magistrate, First Class, Mandi, that the S. H. O. Mandi may be granted permission for investigating the offence. After getting the necessary permission, the S. H. O. Mandi investigated the offence and put. in a report, in the Court of the Magistrate, First Class, Mandi that the petitioner had obstructed Shri Dhani Ram, a public servant, in the discharge of his. public functions and had, thereby, committed art offence under Section 186 I. P. C.

(2.) THE petitioner denied the charge, leveled against her.

(3.) THE learned Magistrate believed the prosecution story and convicted the petitioner under Section 188 I. P. C. The petitioner was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25/ -. It was contended, before the learned Magistrate, that as Shri Dhani Ram, the public servant obstructed, had not filed any complaint, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction, in view of the provisions of Section 195 (1) (a), Cr. P. C. to take cognizance of the offence, against the petitioner. The learned Magistrate did not accept the contention.