AMAR CHAND AND ORS. Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference made to this Court by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dharamsala, presumably under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he has recommended that the prosecution of the accused Amar Chand and others under Sec. 353 of the Indian Penal Code be quashed.

(2.) The prosecution case was no doubt couched in circumstances which prima facie appear reprehensible. One Onkar Singh who is stated to be an Inspector and as such a public officer was going by a bus from Dharamsala to Nurpur on 21 -1 -1969. When the bus reached Rait, the Inspector noticed that a smuggler got down and proceeded towards the shop of one Prakash Chand goldsmith. Accordingly the Inspector got down and reached the shop of Prakash Chand. The smuggler disappeared, but Prakash Chand was dealt with by the Inspector. He asked him to show the relevant record and found that he had not renewed his certificate under the Gold Control Act. A few persons including the accused Amar Chand etc. also assembled. Prakash Chand, Amar Chand who is a Patwari, and some others asked the Inspector to disclose his identity because the latter was demanding gold which was kept in the shop. However, gold ornaments weighing 73 grams were kept in a bundle and these were sealed in a small box. According to Onkar Singh, he showed his identity card. Nevertheless Amar Chand and others demanded that receipt should be given for gold which was thus to be taken away by the Inspector. However, the Inspector refused to give any receipt, and there is some evidence to indicate that he demanded bribe so that the matter might be hushed up. Upon that some struggle took place and it is stated that the accused Amar Chand patwari and others assaulted the Inspector and made him fall on the ground so that his pant also got torn. The patwari Amar Chand immediately wrote a report for his superior officer that he had detected a crime committed by the Inspector whom he bona fidely believed to be an imposter. These were the short grounds on which a case under Sec. 353, Indian Penal Code, was instituted against Amar Chand and others. It was, however, found ultimately that Onkar Singh was really a public servant.

(3.) The learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced the accused under Sec. 353, Indian Penal Code. But curiously enough he did not award any substantial sentence. Rather he fined each of them in a sum of Rs. 50/ -. This will show that the learned Magistrate was not himself sure of the position because otherwise he would have convicted and sentenced these accused in a substantial manner had he been convinced that a public servant was assaulted or beaten in the manner alleged by the prosecution.