K. L. SHRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the appellate judgment and order dated 1-7-83 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mhow in Criminal Appeal No. 247 of 1982 confirming the conviction of each of the petitioners under S. 353/34, I. P. C. and reducing the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 500/- recorded by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mhow in Criminal Case No. 183 of 1978 to R. I. for 6 months and fine.

( 2 ) CIRCUMSTANCES giving rise to this petition are these. According to the prosecution story on 2-2-78 Sub-Inspector Y. P. Yadav (P. W. 1) after search-warrant from the Deputy Superintendent of Police, raided the house of the petitioner Shankarlal and finding his son Subbash (since acquitted in appeal) indulging in Satta gambling, arrested him with money and articles. Later when Subhash was being taken to the police station, he himself and the three petitioners and 15 to 20 other persons pelted stones at the police party and were shouting that Panchnamas be snatched and the police party be beaten. They followed the police party up to the police station thereby obstructing the Sub-Inspector Yadav in the discharge of his public functions.

( 3 ) AT the conclusion of the investigation, the petitioners along with Subhash were prosecuted. Charges under Ss. 186 and 353, I. P. C. were framed against each of them.

( 4 ) AT the conclusion of the trial, the learned Magistrate held that the offence under S. 186, I. P. C. is not proved. He, however, convicted Subhash and the petitioners under S. 353 read with S. 34, I. P. C.

( 5 ) IN appeal by the impugned judgment and order the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted Subhash and maintained the convictions of the petitioners under S. 353/34, I. P. C. reducing the sentences as already stated.

( 6 ) THE contention of the petitioners' learned counsel is that in the instant case, facts relating to the offences under Ss. 186 and 353, I. P. C. being the same or at least interwoven, it has to be held that as cognizance of the offence under S. 186 I. P. C. could not, in view of S. 195 (1) (a) (i) of the Criminal P. C. 1973 (for short 'the Code') have been taken in absence of a written complaint by the public servant concerned or by some other public servant to whom he was administratively subordinate cognizance of the offence under S. 353 ibid was, for that reason, also barred. Reliance was placed on the decision in State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy, AIR 1981 SC 1417. ( 7 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners further is that the charge being under S. 353, I. P. C. , the petitioners could not be convicted for the said offence with recourse to S. 34, I. P. C. in absence of relevant evidence. It is further contended that the offence under S. 353, I. P. C. is an aggravated form of the offence under S. 186, I. P. C. and in view if the acquittal under S. 186 ibid conviction under S. 353, I. P. C. could not be entered.

( 8 ) THE petitioners' learned counsel goes on to contend that the offence for which Subhash was arrested being bailable, it was the duty of the police under S. 50 of the Code to inform him that he could be released on bail and it was illegal on its part to take him to the police station. It is urged that, in the circumstances, those insisting on his being released, could not be held to have committed any offence under S. 353, I. P. C.

( 9 ) IT was lastly contended that the petitioner Ashok being below 21 years of age could not have been sentenced by the learned trial Magistrate to imprisonment, without complying with the mandatory requirements of S. 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. This Court's attention was also invited to the provision of Ss. 360 and 361 of the Code.

( 10 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent contends that when the police was taking Subhash to the police station, the petitioners could demand his release on bail but they could not have indulged in obstructin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document