Disobedience of an order under Section 145 CrPC is not an offense unless it entails one or other of the consequences mentioned in Section 188 IPC, such as causing or tending to cause a riot or affray.

ORDER:- Petitioner Subramaniam was convicted u/Ss. 447, 379 and 188 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months on each of the first two counts and simple imprisonment for one month on the last count, by the Sub-Magistrate, Tindivanam, and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. But the learned District Magistrate, South Arcot, on appeal set aside the convictions u/Ss. 447 and 379 I.P.C. and the sentences imposed in respect of the same, but confirmed the conviction of the petitioner only under S. 188 I.P.C. and modified the sentence to one of fine of Rs. 100 in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one week.

2. The complaint in this case was referred by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Villupuram, on the ground that an order passed in M.C. 189 of 1962 on the file of that court on 13-11-1962 was disobeyed by the petitioner on 12-5-1966. The petitioner was the tenth respondent in the proceedings under Sec. 145 Crl. P. C. and he claimed item 8 in the schedule of properties in the said petition, which is the subject-matter of the present case, as having been taken by him on lease from the original owner, Padmanabha Gramani. It should be rioted that the claims which led to civil disputes and the proceedings under S. 145 Crl. P. C. were between persons who claimed title as heirs of the said Padmanabha Gramani. In fact, an order of interim injunction was passed by the High Court against the petitioners in the proceedings under S. 145 Crl. P. C. Sri C. K. Venkatanarasimham appearing for the petitioner questioned the validity of the order under S. 145 Crl. P. C. on the above materials; but in my opinion, he is not entitled to do so as he failed to seek relief by taking proceedings against the said order, which has become final. Sri C. K. Venkatanarasimham has also taken a ground that the order under S. 145 Crl. P. C. has not been promulgated. But he fairly conceded that he could not urge such a ground as he was a party who took part in the proceedings in which the order was passed against him and others.

3. The main contention to be considered in this case is whether the disobedience of the order passed under S. 145 Crl. P. C. entailed one or other of the three consequences mentioned in Section 188 I.P.C.

4. The first consequence mentioned in Sec. 188 I.P.C. refers to such disobedience which 'causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance, or injury, to any persons lawfully employed'. Obviously, this clause could have no application to the order in question. It would generally apply to cases where orders passed have to be enforced by public officials directly or through others lawfully employed by them. It is not necessary to state who all could be considered as coming within the clause "persons lawfully employed". The earlier part of third para of S. 188 I.P.C. refers to the second consequence, namely, 'such disobedience' which 'causes or tends to cause danger to human life, health or safety'. This will apply to cases of disobedience of orders passed under Chapter X, Crl. P. C. to prevent offences falling under Chapter XIV of the Indian Penal Code relating to public nuisances and similar cases. The third consequence referred to in the latter part of the third para of S. 188 I.P.C. is one relevant to this case, namely, such disobedience of the order which 'causes or tends to cause a riot or affray.'

5. The order under S. 145 Crl. P. C. could be made only when the dispute as to immoveable property is "likely to cause breach of the peace". If such an order is disobeyed and it 'causes or tends to cause a riot or affray', the person disobeying such order ought to be punished as the object of the order is to prevent breach of the peace. But before a person could be punished for disobedience of an order under S. 145 Crl. P. C. there should be evidence and a definite finding based on that evidence that his act of disobedience caused or tended to cause a

riot