A public servant acting without authority cannot claim the protection of Section 99 of the Indian Penal Code, which provides that there is no right of private defence against a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office.

P. S. Sahay. J.

1. -the petitioners were convicted by the trial court under section 332 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment each.

2. The prosecution story, in brief, was that Chuni Lal Singh P. W.1 was working as Canal Tahsil Peon in Bikramganj Circle. On 22.12.1968 at 6.30 a. m. he went on cycle to Ghusia ;kalan. He kept his cycle in the village at the house of Sattadar Rajeshwar Singh (P. W.4) and started making collection. He visited the house of petitioner Surendra as there were dues standing in the names of his wife, Shail Kumari and his mother-in-law, Moti Rani Kuer. He had also made demands earlier and was not paid the dues. He renewed his demand on that date also from petitioner Rewati Raman. Just then his son petitioner Surendra came out and said that P. W.1 was making unnecessary demands and was thus lowering them in the estimation of the general public. Both the petitioner caughthold of P. W 1, and petitioner surendra assaulted him with a Chappal and petitioner Rewati assaulted him with a wooden Chappal on account of which he sustained a bleeding injury on the head. There was hulla and P. W, 1 was rescued. A written report was submitted by P. W.1 to the Tahsildar (P. W.2) who forwarded the petitions to the assistant Revenue Officer (P. W.3 ). This was submitted to the police, on which a formal first information report was drawn up. Investigation was started by (P. W.6) who referred (P. W.1) to Bikramganj hospital for medical examination. Dr. R. Prasad (P. W.7) examined him and found a lacerated wound 2" above the left ear, besides a scratch on the elbow joint, which were simple in nature. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and the petitioners were put on trial.

3. Seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The defence of the petitioners was that (P. W.1) had falsely implicated them and that there were no dues with any member of their family. The learned Magistrate accepted the prosecution case and convicted the petitioner, as stated above. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has held that the prosecution has failed to prove that there was any due with any relative of the petitioners and the documents have been with held by the prosecution. He has further held that the prosecution has failed to prove that P. W.1 had gone to the house of the petitioners in discharge of his official duty, and so the charge under section 332 of the penal Code has not been proved against them. But at the same time, he has held that the petitioners voluntarily caused hurt to P. W.1 and, therefore, convicted them of the minor offence under Sec.323 of the Code, instead of Sec.332, and sentence them to rigorous imprisonment for three months each. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the petitioners have preferred this revision.

4. Mr. Parmanand Saran Sinha learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has contended that on the finding of the appellate court that there were no dues with the family of the petitioners, the act of going to their house and demanding money in presence of so many persons was a clear act of trespass and it was a deliberate attempt on the part of P. W.1 to intimidate, insult and annoy the petitioners and even if some force was used, on offence has been committed by the petitioners. Leanred counsel appearing on behalf of the State has, however, contended that P. W.1 was admittedly a public servant and was acting in good faith under colour of his office, and, in that view of the matter, the petitioners are not protected under Sec.99 of the Penal Code, and they have been rightly convicted for having caused hurt to P. W.1. Sec.99 reads as follows:

"99. Acts against which there is no right of private defence.-There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done by a public servant acting in good faith