IMPORTANT POINT
Obstruction of lawful orders by public servants is not protected under Section 197 Cr.P.C. if the act is not connected to their official duties.

ORDER:

E.V.Venugopal, J.

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 22.12.2012 passed in C.C.No.2 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Warangal wherein and whereby the Court below observed that prima facie case is made out against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 188 IPC and took cognizance thereof, the petitioner filed the present criminal revision case.

2. The facts in brief are that on 21.12.2012 at 5.00 pm, the S.I. of Police, Subedari P.S lodged a written complaint stating that on the same day while he was performing route bandobusth duty from Haritha hotel to DPO centre, in view of the visit of the Chief Minister of A.P, Hyderabad to Warangal, to inaugurate Kaktiya Utsavalu, and when they were on that duty, at 3.20 p.m, when the convoy reached Haritha hotel, in the meantime, Jorika Ramesh, Vasudeva Reddy, Dharshan Singh, Anil, Sanku Narsinga Rao, Yellavula Rajendra Yadav and some others who are the TRS party sympathisers have formed themselves into unlawful assembly with conspiracy and wrongfully restrained the convoy, hurled slogans and pelted stones on the bus in which the Chief Minister was travelling resulting breaking of wind screens of the bus. In that connection a case in Cr.No.469 of 2012 under Sections 143, 120(B), 341, 427 r/w 149 IPC and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property and under Section 7 (1) of Criminal Law Amendment Act, was registered. Consequent upon the registration of the said crime, the police apprehended A.1 to A.6 connected to that case and brought them to police station at 6.00 p.m. on the same day.

3. Be that as it may, apprehending that the police may use third degree upon A.1 to A.6 in the above crime, one Mr. Sk.Abdul Nabi, advocate filed a petition under Section 97 Cr.P.C. before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Warangal requesting the Court to issue warrant of search to search whether his clients, whose names as stated supra, were in the premises of the police station Subedari and also to appoint an advocate commissioner to search the police station and if the said persons were found in the premises of the police station, they may be directed to be produced before the Court of law and also to take appropriate steps against the police who are responsible for illegal custody of the said persons.

4. On filing of such an application, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Warangal, ordered that application for search of the police station, Subedari and accordingly two advocates by name K.Ramesh and M.Ravinder were appointed as advocate commissioners for conducting search, who after conducting the search have filed report before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Warangal on 9.25 p.m. on the same day i.e. 21.12.2012 to the effect that they found A2 to A.6 in Cr.No.469 of 2012 in the police station Subedari. When they searched the police station in pursuance of the warrant of search, the C.I. of Police and other police men obstructed them from discharging their duty and instructed them to leave the police station, Subedari stating that they themselves would produce A.2 to A.6 before the Court. As a result, the Advocate Commissioners have not produced A.2 to A.6 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate though they stated to have found the detenue in the police station, Subedari.

5. Thereafter, at about 10.55 pm, the police produced A.2 to A.6 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, by which time, the Advocate Commissioners have already filed their report. Hence the C.I. of police by name V.Suresh (petitioner herein) appeared before the open court by producing A.2 to A.6. A copy of the report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner was furnished to him and he also acknowledged the same.

6. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate recorded the sworn statements of the Advocate Commissioner Sri M.Ramesh and also sworn statement of A.2 in Cr.No.469 of 2012. On perusal of the report submitted by the Advocate Commissioners and the swor