The High Court has the jurisdiction to review the evidence and interfere with an order of acquittal. The charge under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code is not maintainable if the prosecution is barred under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Judgment

RAMASWAMI

( 1 ) THIS appeal is brought, by special leave, from the judgment of the Orissa High Court, dated 2/03/1964 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 Indian Penal Code 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 Prosecution witness 2, Sadhu Charan Mohanty, a peon of the Civil Court, Puri, returnable by 10/08/1962. Prosecution witness 2 reached the village of the judgment-debtors on 10/08/1962 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. Prosecution witness 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, Prosecution witness 1, the Assistant Sub-Inspector, Sadar Police Station, Puri, was deputed along with two constables including Prosecution witness 3, Constable No. 613. They went to the village Sanua where the writ of attachment was to be executed. Prosecution witness 6 the Naib Sarpanch and Prosecution witness 8 the Chowkidar of the village Chhaitna also accompanied them. On reaching the spot, they found Prosecution witness 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, Prosecution witness 1 saw the appellant Durga Charan with 10 or 12 persons coming from the opposite direction. On seeing them, Prosecution witness 1 apprehended some trouble and directed Prosecution witness 2 to hand over the money to the Chowkidar, Prosecution witness 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 Prosecution witness 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 Prosecution witness 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. Prosecution witness 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 Sections 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 Prosecution witness 1 and Bipra Charan and Jugal w