MEHROTRA, J.

( 1 ) THE following order of law has been referred to us by the learned Single Judge: -"whether Section 188, I. P. C. is applicable to orders passed in judicial proceedings by civil, revenue or criminal courts?" the facts giving rise to this revision are that Srimati Manbasia, Parana Koori, Shakal Koori, Dal ganjan Koeri and Prikhka Koeri are alleged to have cut and removed the crop of plot No. 485/1, 25 decimals. A suit under Section 60, U. P. Tenancy Act was filed by Ram Krishun Lal and others against Srimati Manbasia and others which was pending in the Court of the Judicial officer in respect of plot No. 485/1, area 25 decimals. In that suit an order was passed for the attachment of the crop on the 16th January, 1951 and the crop was ordered to be attached through a commissioner Sri Tribhuwan Tewari. An order of injunction was served by the commissioner on the parties not to damage the crop in question. Three persons were appointed caretakers of the crop and they made a complaint on the 5th march, 1951 that the present applicants, in disobedience of the order of injunction, cut away the crop. On these facts the applicants were prosecuted under Sections 379 and 188, I. P. C. The magistrate convicted the applicants and the conviction was confirmed in appeal.

( 2 ) IN revision, before the learned Single Judge, one of the points taken by the applicants was that the applicants could not be convicted under Section 188, I. P. C. for breach of the order passed by the revenue court. Section 188, I. P. C. does not apply to orders passed in judicial proceedings by civil, revenue or criminal courts. As this question is of general importance, the learned Single judge has referred this question to a Bench.

( 3 ) SECTION 188, I. P. C. provides:

"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 persons 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. "

It is contended by the applicants that before Section 188, I. P. C. could be applied, there must be an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order the disobedience of which causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed. Unless these three conditions exist, Section 188 cannot apply. In effect, the argument is that Section 188 I. P. C. does not contemplate disobedience of orders passed in judicial proceedings by civil, revenue or criminal courts. It contemplates orders passed by public functionaries, the disobedience of which is likely to result into annoyance or injury or tends to cause danger to human life, health or safety or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray. It is contended by the State Counsel that there are no such limitations placed on the nature of the order the disobedience of which has been made penal under Section 188 I. P. C. A civil or criminal court is as much a public servant as any other public officer and any orders passed by them in judicial proceedings are in effect promulgated and the courts are empowered to promulgate such orders. Any order of injunction is likely to result into annoyance to the party at whose instance the injunction order has been obtained and consequently such a case will be covered by Section 188, I. P. C. It is necessary to examine the cases referred to on this point by the parties. The earliest case referred to by the applicants is In the matter of the petition of Chandrakanta De, 6 Cal 445 (A ). In this case a mandatory injunction was is