1. Execution of decree — Resistance to attachment — Use of criminal force against public servants during discharge of duty — Prosecution under Section 353, IPC. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1966 Supreme(SC) 312
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. SUBBA RAO, C.J.I. AND V. RAMASWAMI, J.
Durgacharan Naik and others, Appellants
Versus
State of Orissa, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 1964.
Advocates appeared
M/s. R. K. Garg, S. C. Agarwala, M. K. Ramamurthi and D. P. Singh, Advocates of M/s. Ramamurthi and Co., for Appellants; M/s. H. R. Khanna and R. N. Sachthey, Advocates, for Respondent.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 353 and 186 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 195 - Conviction for using criminal force against public servants - Whether trial for a distinct offence under Section 353 IPC is barred by Section 195 CrPC if the facts also disclose an offence under Section 186 IPC - Section 186 and Section 353 IPC relate to two distinct offences with different ingredients and qualities; the former involves voluntary obstruction of a public servant, while the latter requires the use of assault or criminal force - Section 195 CrPC does not bar the trial of an accused for a distinct offence disclosed by the same set of facts which is not within the ambit of that section. (Paras 5 and 6)
(B) Appeal against Acquittal - Scope of power of Appellate Court - An appellate court has full power to review the entire evidence upon which an order of acquittal is founded - The court is not bound by a rigid formula to characterize findings as "perverse" before reversing an acquittal; it only needs to consider every matter on record and express reasons why the acquittal was not justified. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
A process server and police personnel were executing a writ of attachment for a decree. After the decretal amount was paid, the appellants intercepted the officials, used criminal force, dragged a police officer, threatened assault, and obstructed them from leaving. The trial court acquitted the appellants of all charges. However, the High Court set aside the acquittal and convicted the appellants under Section 353 of the IPC, while holding that prosecution under Section 186 of the IPC was barred by Section 195 of the CrPC.
Findings of Court:
The High Court was justified in interfering with the order of acquittal as the evidence established that the appellants used criminal force against public servants in the discharge of their duties. The conviction under Section 353 of the IPC is legal and not a circumvention of the requirements of Section 195 of the CrPC.
Issues: Whether the High Court had the jurisdiction to reverse the order of acquittal and whether the requirement of a written complaint under Section 195 of the CrPC for an offence under Section 186 of the IPC bars a conviction for a distinct offence under Section 353 of the IPC based on the same facts.
Ratio Decidendi: An appellate court possesses wide powers to review evidence and reverse an acquittal if the reasons for such acquittal are not justified. Furthermore, Section 195 of the CrPC does not bar the trial of a distinct offence disclosed by the same or similar set of facts if that offence is not included within the ambit of Section 195, provided the charge is not a camouflage to evade the law.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellate court's jurisdiction to reverse acquittal — Applicability of Section 195, CrPC bar to prosecution under Section 353, IPC when based on same facts as Section 186, IPC. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. Appellate courts possess wide powers to review evidence in appeals against acquittal; Section 195, CrPC does not bar trial for distinct offences arising from the same facts. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
4. Section 195, CrPC does not bar trial for a distinct offence disclosed by the same facts if that offence is not within the ambit of Section 195. (Para 5 , 6 )
5. Appeal dismissed — Judgment of the High Court affirmed. (Para 9 )
6. What is the scope of an appellate court's power to interfere with an order of acquittal?
An appellate court has full power to review the entire evidence and reach its own conclusion. It must consider all record matters and the trial court's reasoning, expressing its own reasons for holding the acquittal unjustified, without necessarily characterizing the trial court's findings as perverse. (Para 4 )
7. Does Section 195 of the CrPC bar the trial of an accused for a distinct offence disclosed by the same set of facts?
No, Section 195, CrPC does not bar the trial of an accused for a distinct offence disclosed by the same or slightly different facts, provided the offence is not within the ambit of Section 195 and is not a result of camouflage or mislabeling. (Para 5 , 6 , 8 )
8. How do Sections 186 and 353 of the IPC differ in terms of ingredients and nature?
Section 186 involves voluntary obstruction of a public servant and is non-cognizable. Section 353 requires the use of assault or criminal force and is a cognizable offence. They belong to different chapters: Section 186 concerns contempts of lawful authority, while Section 353 concerns offences affecting the human body. (Para 5 )
Judgement
RAMASWAMI, J. : This appeal is brought, by special leave, from the judgment of the Orissa High Court, dated March 2, 1964 in Government Appeal No. 49 of 1963 by which the High Court set aside the order of acquittal passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Puri and convicted the appellants under S. 353 of the I.P.C. and sentenced them to 4 months rigorous imprisonment.
2. The decree-holders Panu Sahu and Naba Sahu levied execution of the decree (Ex. Case No. 125/62), in the Court of the Munsif, Puri, against the appellants and a writ of attachment of the moveables of the judgment-debtor was issued for execution through P. W. 2, Sadhu Charan Mohanty, a peon of the Civil Court, Puri, returnable by August 10, 1962. P. W. 2 reached the village of the judgment-debtors on August 10, 1962 at 10 a.m. with the warrant of attachment and asked the judgment-debtors to pay the decretal dues of Rs. 952.10 nP., and when he was going to seize some of the movables, the appellants came there with lathis and resisted him. P. W. 2 sent a report-Ex. 4-to the Court through Nabaghan requesting the Court to give necessary police help. Accordingly on the same day the Munsif wrote a letter, Ex. 2, requesting the Superintendent of Police, Puri, to direct the Officer-in-charge, Sadar Police Station, to give immediate police help to the process server. In pursuance of this letter, P. W. 1, the Assistant Sub-Inspector, Sadar Police Station, Puri, was deputed along with two constables including P. W. 3, Constable No. 613. They went to the village Sanua where the writ of attachment was to be executed. P. W. 6 the Naib Sarpanch and P. W. 8 the Chowkidar of the village Chhaitna also accompanied them. On reaching the spot, they found P. W. 2 sitting in front of the house of Durga Charan Naik-one of the judgment-debtors. The A. S. I. then called out Fakir Charan Naik, father of Durga Charan Naik one of the judgment-debtors, who opened the door and paid Rs. 952.10 nP. to the process server, Sadhu Charan Mohanty and obtained a receipt from him. After the money was paid, all of them left the village and at about 7 p.m. while they were crossing a river nearby in a boat, P. W. 1 saw the appellant Durga Charan with 10 or 12 persons coming from the opposite direction. On seeing them, P. W. 1 apprehended some trouble and directed P. W. 2 to hand over the money to the Chowkidar, P. W. 8. When all of them got down from the boat, appellant Charan forcibly dragged the A. S. I. An number of other persons including the other appellants assembled at the spot. Durga Charan threatened to assault the A. S. I. if he did not return the money. Durga Charan also searched his pockets and Netrananda threatened the A. S. I. by saying that he would not leave the place until the money was returned. When P. W. 1 wanted to write a report to his police station, Netrananda obstructed him by holding his right hand. Bipra and Jugal caught hold of the hands of P. W. 2 and took him to the river bank and demanded return of the money. Then at the intervention of some outsiders the appellants left the spot. P. W. 1 lodged the first information report at the police station next morning and after investigation the appellants were charge-sheeted and committed to the Court of Sessions.
3. The appellants were charged under Ss. 143/402, I. P. C. on the allegation that they formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing dacoity, Durga Charan, Jugal, Bipra along with three others were further charged under S. 186, I. P. C. for having voluntarily obstructed P Ws. 1 and 2 in the discharge of their public duty. Durga Charan and Netrananda were also charged under S. 353, I. P. C. for having used criminal force against P. W. 1 and Bipra Charan and Jugal were similarly charged under S. 353, I. P. C. for having used criminal force against P. W. 2 while both of them were discharging their duty as public servants. The Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the appellants of all the charges. Th
