GOKAL CHAND Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case the applicant has been convicted and sentenced for assaulting a public servant in the discharge of his duty. The case for the prosecution was that some camels were required for military purposes and the Tahsildar of Agra was instructed to secure some for selection and purchase. He sent a Jamadar with some peons to procure camels and persuade the owners to take them to the Tahsil for the purpose. It appears that near the shop of the accused, which is in Mohalla Tajganj, some camels were found standing and the Tahsil Chaprasis were persuading the owners to take the camels to the Tahsil. The owners were not willing to do so and a sort of argument ensued between them. On this the accused came down from his shop and struct one of the peons twice with a stick and the owners of the camels, taking advantage of the opportunity, disappeared, This story has been believed by the two Courts below and the accused has been convicted and sentenced to six weeks rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50. He comes here in revision. The first point taken by Mr. Ram Nama Prasad, who has argued the case with his usual great care and ability, is that it has not been shown that the Tahsil Chaprasis were acting as public servants when they wanted to take the camels to the Tahsil and he has referred to certain cases in which I do not think it necessary to enter into detail. Mr. Malcomson on behalf of the Grown relies upon Regulation XI of 1806 as being one which shows that it was the duty of Tahsildar or a like officer to supply the Military Authorities with facilities for transport, etc., when required to do so. I gave the learned gentlemen who appear on either side an opportunity to show what the exact military necessity was for which these camels were required and to see whether the case came within the purview of Regulation XI of 1806. The result was not at all satisfactory as the record does not disclose the reason why these camels were required. The conviction, therefore, cannot stand under Section 353 of the INdian Penal Code as it has not been shown that the Chaprasis were acting as public servants in the discharge of their duties. It is, however, urged by Mr. Malcomson in reply that, even if that is not so, the accused who had nothing to do with the camels had no business to come forward and attack the Tahsil Chaprasis, and be liable to be convicted under Section 323 of the INdian Penal Code. He relies upon a case of Queen Empress v. Dalip 13 A. 243, A.W.N. (1313) 43 : 8 INd. Dec, (N. s.) 871 in which the conviction of the accused was upheld under Section 323 of the INdian Penal Code. The injury was a very trifling one. The accused is a young man who has just attained majority and was possibly carried away into assaulting the Chaprasis who were, as I have said above, not justified in taking the camels to the Tahsil. 1, therefore, alter the conviction from one under Section 353 of the INdian Penal Code to one under Section 323 of the same Code. He has had five or six days in jail and I believe it will be a sufficient warning to him for interfering with the affairs of others in future. IN other respects the application is dismissed.