( 1 ) PETITIONER had let out its premises at U-38-A, shakarpur, Delhi to one company called M/s. Shrestha priya Finance and Investment Limited. The company wound up and a case of cheating (FIR No. 101/2000) was registered against it under Sections 406/420/34 IPC at p. S. Shakarpur on the complaint of some investors. Its office at the premises was said to have been sealed and then again re-opened and its office record was transferred to Malkhana of Police Station. It also transpires that when investigation of FIR No. 101/2000 was transferred to Crime Branch, petitioner was found in possession of the premises.

( 2 ) BE that as it may, it was in this background that petitioner was booked in two FIRs - FIR No. 428/2000 under Sections 454/380 IPC and FIR No. 433/2000 under section 188 IPC. He challenged both FIRs in this petition. The first one was quashed by court order dated 4. 9. 2001 but the second one survived and now it is to be seen whether this would also go.

( 3 ) THIS FIR under Section 188 IPC charges petitioner of disobeying Police Commissioner s orders contained in notification dated 22. 6. 2000 requiring house owners to inform the concerned police stations about the particulars of the tenants to whom the premises was let out or sublet by them.

( 4 ) PETITIONER s case is that Police Commissioner s order was not to his knowledge and, therefore, no offence could be said to have been made out against him under Section 188 IPC. The stand of respondents, however, is that the Commissioner s notification dated 22. 6. 2000 was duly publicised before the relevant date and its knowledge must be attributed to petitioner to attract Section 188 IPC.

( 5 ) BY court order dated 13. 2. 20002, respondent was asked to indicate and specify all modes of publication resorted to in this regard. DCP/hq Sh. T. N. Mohan has filed an affidavit in compliance along with some news clippings and photocopies of some handbills, etc. in a bid to show that Police Commissioner s notification in question was widely publicised and brought to the knowledge of public and impliedly to petitioners also. It remains to be seen whether such knowledge could be attributed to petitioners in the facts and circumstances of the case. Section 188 IPC, which has a crucial bearing in the matter, reads thus:-

"188. Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant - Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction. shall, if such disobedience causes to tender to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both; and if such disobedience causes or tends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or cases or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. "

( 6 ) THE provision provides for two types of punishments for knowingly disobeying a validly promulgated order by a public servant. Its ingredients are: - (1) there must be an order promulgated by a public servant. (2) such public servant must be lawfully empowered to promulgate such order. (3) A person must have a knowledge of such order directing him to abstain from an act or (b) to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management. (4) He must disobey the order having its knowledge. (5) Such obedience must cause or tend to cause (a) obstruction, annoyance or injury or risk of it to any person lawfully employ or (b) danger to human life, health and safety.

( 7 ) WE are not at this stage co