N ANAND VENKATESH, J.

1. An important issue has arisen for consideration in these batch of cases. It is seen that a flurry of cases registered by the Police under Section 188 of Indian Penal Code [IPC], along with other offences becomes a subject matter of challenge before this Court on a daily basis. In spite of certain earlier decisions with regard to the manner in which an offence under Section 188 of IPC can be proceeded against certain persons who are alleged to have committed the said offence, and who has to file a complaint with regard to such an offence, has been spelt out in those decisions. Despite the same, the Police continue to register an FIR under Section 188 of IPC along with other offences. Therefore, this Court thought it fit to discuss the law on the point in detail and give certain guidelines to be followed in future by the Police while dealing with an offence under Section 188 of IPC.

2. The provision under Section 188 of IPC is extracted hereunder:

"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 or tends 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 trends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both".

Explanation.-It is not necessary that the offender should intend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience as likely to produce harm. It is sufficient that he knows of the order which he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or is likely to produce, harm.

Lord Macaulay's Report on this provision will be of some interest before proceeding to deal with the provision. The same is extracted hereunder.

"Thus it may happen that a religious procession which is in itself perfectly legal, and which, while it passes through many quarters of a town is perfectly harmless, cannot, without great risk of tumult and outrage, be suffered to turn down a particular street inhabited by persons, who hold the ceremony in abhorrence, and whose passions are excited by being forced to witness it. Again, there are many Hindu rites which in Hindu temples and religious assemblies, the law tolerates, but which could not with propriety be exhibited in a place which English gentlemen and ladies were in the habit of frequenting, for purpose of exercise. Again, at a particular season, hydrophobia may be common among the dogs at a particular place, and it may be highly advisable that all the people at that place should keep their dogs strictly confined. Again, there may be a particular place in a town in which the people are in the habit of using as a receptacle for filth. In general, this practice may do no harm, but an unhealthy season may arrive when it may be dangerous to the health of the population, and under such circumstances it is evidently desirable that no person should be allowed to add to the nuisance. It is evident, that it is utterly impossible for the legislature to mark out the route of all the religious processions in India, to specify all the public walks frequented by English ladies and gentlemen, to foresee in what months and in what places hydrophobia will be common among dogs,, or when a particular dunghill may become dangerous to the health of a town. It is equally evident that ti would be unjust to punish a person who