Mere disobedience of an order promulgated by a public servant is not in itself an offence unless it entails one or other of the consequences which Section 188 IPC itself mentions.

N. G. Chaudhuri, J. :- This Revisional petition under Section 397 read with Section 482 Cr. P.C. is directed against orders dated 4-11-78 and 4-4-79 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Katwa in case No. C/458 of 1978 and is for quashing the proceedings in the said case. The aforesaid case arose out of a complaint under Sec. 188 I.P.C. filed by the Executive Magistrate, Katwa. The undisputed facts are that on 6-7-77 the Executive Magistrate, Katwa, in Misc. Case No. 58 of 1977 passed an order under Section 144 Cr. P.C. restraining the present petitioner and some others from entering upon the land in dispute. The said order was duly promulgated on 15-7-77. On 19-7-77 the Mondal opposite parties filed a petition alleging that in spite of service of notice of the proceedings and the order under Section 144 Cr. P.C. the present petitioner and some others violated the aforesaid order on 17-7-77, entered upon the disputed land and interfered with the possession of the said opposite parties. In the aforesaid circumstances the Mondal opposite parties prayed for prosecution of the present petitioner and others under Section 188 I.P.C. The Executive Magistrate called for a report upon enquiry from O.C. Ketugram. O.C. Ketugram reported on 31-8-77 that the Mondal opposite parties had cultivated the disputed land peacefully and offence under Section 188 I.P.C. was not established. An objection was raised with regard to the report aforesaid and the Executive Magistrate entrusted a second enquiry to C. I. of Police Katwa. C. I. of Police, Katwa submitted his report on 12-12-77. He reported that the order under Section 144 Cr. P.C. was violated as alleged. On the basis of the said report of the Court Inspector the Executive Magistrate made a complaint to the S.D.J.M. Katwa on 27-10-78. He alleged "....... it appears from the report of C. I. that the said persons (meaning the present petitioner and others) violating the order under Section 144 P.C. entered into the disputed land on 17-7-77 and interfered with the cultivation of the land of the petitioner No. 1 and his labourers." As a public servant concerned whose orders have been disobeyed he lodged the complaint under S.195(1)(a) of the Cr. P.C. By the said order dated 4-11-78 impugned herein the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint and ordered issue of summons.

2. Mr. Dilip Dutta, the learned advocate for the petitioner questions the validity of the proceedings before the S.D.J.M. principally on two grounds. His first contention is that the order under S.144 having been violated on 17-7-77 as alleged, the complaint dated 29-10-78 is barred by limitation. He contends that an offence under S.188 I.P.C. being punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year the cognizance of the offence under Section 468(2)(b) of the Cr. P.C. could not be taken after one year of the commission of the offence. His second contention is that the essential ingredients of the offence under S.188 I.P.C. were not disclosed in the complaint and as such cognizance should not have been taken; and for that reason the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

3. The first contention of Mr. Dutt does not weigh with us. The Executive Magistrate, we have noted, came to know of the violation of the order from the report of the Circle Inspector dated 12-12-77 and he made the complaint on 27-10-78. Section 468(2)(b) Cr. P.C. prescribe, one year as the period of limitation for an offence like the one under S.188 punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year. The period of limitation as prescribed is required to be computed, under S.469 (1) (b) Cr. P.C. where the commission of the offence was not known to the person aggrieved by the offence, from the first day on which the offence comes to the knowledge of such person. In the instant case the C. I. reported about commission of the offence on 12-12-77 and coming to know that the Executive Magistrate mad