LONKARAN MULTANCHAND Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant, Lonkaran has been convicted under Sections 186 and 353, Penal Code, and sentenced to fines of Rs. 50 and Rs. 200. He owns one field at Kajli in the Wardha district and another field at Chikhli in the Nagpur district. These two fields lie close to each other on the Nagpur-Wardha boundary. On 18-1-1945 he finished cutting the juar crop in the Kajli field and was about to cart it to Chikhli, where he has his agricultural establishment, when he was interrupted by Pandurang (P.W. 1) the mukaddam-gumasta of Kajli, Kisan (P.W. 2), the patwari of Kajli, and Ganpat (P.W. 7), the Kotwar of Kajli, who told him that he could not take the juar out of the Wardha district without a permit. The accused however insisted that he would take the juar away, and Pandurang, in order to prevent him, caught hold of the nose-strings of the bullocks of the cart. On this the accused struck Pandurang twice with his fist and pushed him away, and after threats of further violence took his cart away to Chikhli.

(2.) TWO questions have been argued in this Court: first, whether the mukaddam-gumasta is a public servant, and secondly, if so whether he was acting in the discharge of his public functions as described in Section 186 or in the execution of his duty as a public servant as required by Section 358, Penal Code. The first point, I think, is clear. The duties of a mukaddam are enumerated in Section 193, Land Revenue Act, and in the rules under the Act, and by Section 191 of that Act a mukaddam-gumasta shall be deemed to have the powers conferred on a mukaddam by this Act and the rules made thereunder and to be responsible jointly with the mukaddam for the duties so prescribed. One of the duties of the mukaddam is to report the commission of certain offences under the Penal Code, and he therefore falls within the definition of "public servant" in Section 21, Penal Code.

(3.) THE offence was an offence punishable under Rule 81(4), Defence of India Rules with punishment that might extend to three years rigorous imprisonment and was therefore cognizable and non-bailable offence in accordance with the Schedule 2, Cr. P.C. It would have been open to any private person to arrest the accused under Section 59(1), Cr. P.C., but that would not mean that the mukaddam-gumasta in what he did was acting in the discharge of his duty as a public servant.