Sections 332, 333, and 353 IPC are only attracted when a public servant is discharging his duties and is attacked, injured, prevented, or deterred from performing his duties.

T. H. B. Chalapathi, J.

1. This revision petition is filed against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, dated 10.9.1994, directing the framing of charges under Sec.333, 332 and 353 read with sec. 34 I. P. C. against the petitioners.

2. A case has been registered against the petitioners on a complaint given by one Davinder Singh, a police constable, working in Hajipur Police Station. According to him, on 28.1.1994, he was deputed to deliver the dakat various places and after delivering the dak to the officers-concerned, he was returning to the Police Station, Hajipur in a bus bearing No; PB-02-9495. Accused No.1 was the conductor of the bus while accused No.2 was the driver of the bus. According to him, he travelled in the bus on the roof for some distance and got inside at Daman Canal bus stand, then the conductor asked him for a ticket and he showed the ticket purchased by him. As he was in uniform, the conductor asked him why he was travelling in a private bus as he happened to be a PUNJAB Page 2 of 3 police man. Thereafter, when the bus reached Hajipur, the conductor of the bus pushed him out of the bus and the bus conductor grappled him and the driver of the bus, accused No.2, hit him with an iron rod on the left side of his face, nose and lip and that his two teeth were also broken. Therefore, one Hoshiar Singh, Head Constable came there and admitted him in Civil Hospital.

3. On the basis of the said complaint, a case was registered against the accused and charge-sheet was filed against the accused for the offences under Sections 332, 333, 353 and 186 I. P. C. As offence under Sec.333 I. P. C. is exclusively iriable by a Court of Sessions, the case was made over to Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, who by the impugned order directed the framing of charges against the accused for the offences under Sections 333, 332 and 353 read with Sec.34 I. P. C. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contented that offences under Sections 333, 332, and 353 I. P. C. have not been made out on a reading of the complaint It is not the case of the prosecution that the police constable Davinder Singh was attacked while discharging his duties as a public servant or with any intent to prevent or deter the constable from discharging his duties as such public servant and, therefore, the offences under Sections 333, 332 and 353 I. P. C. arc not atiracted in this case. According to him, the averments in the complaint may amount to commission of offences under Sections 323 or 324 or under any other Section which are not exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. According to learned counsel, the offences under Sections 332, 333 and 353 I. P. C. came into play only when a public servant is discharging his duties as such and that if any injury is caused to him while discharging his duties in official capacity. According to him, it is not the case of the prosecution that at the time of the commission of the offence, the constable Davinder Singh was discharging any official duty because after performing his official duties, he had been simply returning to the police station in the bus during which time the alleged incident was said to have taken place.

5. It is to be seen whether the learned Additional Session Judge is correct in framing charges for the offences under Sections 332, 333 and 353 I. P. C. read with Sec.34 I. P. C. Sections 332, 333 and 353 I. P. C. as follows:

S.332. Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty.- Whoever voluntariiy caused hurt to any person being a public a. servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with impr