RAMLAKHAN RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application against the order of conviction under Section 186, Penal Code, the petitioner having been sentenced to one month's rigorous imprisonment under that section.

(2.) The prosecution case is that there was a civil Court decree in which the petitioner's father was also judgment-debtor. A writ of delivery of possession was issued in execution of that decree and a peon went to the apot to effect delivery of possession of a certain house to the decree-holder on 11th December 1948. When the drum was being beaten, the petitioner who was in occupation of the house at the time stated to the peon that he had taken the house on rent from Sonik Ram and Parmeshar Ram, the landlords, and that he could not vacate the house unless the landlords aaked him to do so. It is also stated that the petitioner made an endorsement on the back of the writ to the same effect. The peon then submitted a report saying that he had been obstructed is delivering possesssion, and that in the circumstances delivery of possession could not be effected without deputation of the Nazir of the Court. The proceeding accordingly was started against the petitioner for voluntarily obstructing a public servant in the discharge of his duties.

(3.) The defence of the petitioner is that when the peon asked the petitioner to vacate the house, the petitioner replied that he had taken the house on rent from two persons named above, and would call the owners of the house to corroborate the statement of the peon so liked. He, had, therefore, no intention to obstruct the peon in the discharge of his duties and his con. duct was absolutely bond fide.