JUDGEMENT

In this criminal appeal, the appellant (hereinafter referred to as “accused”)

has challenged the judgment passed on 13.9.2000 by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa, in Sessions Trial No.56/2000 holding the accused guilty of offence of Sections 294 and 333 IPC and sentencing him to fine of Rs. 200/- for the offence of Section 294 IPC and one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.300/- for the offence of Section 333 IPC with default clause of suffering simple imprisonment for 15 days and rigorous imprisonment for three months, in respective defaults of fine amount.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 26.10.1996 complainant Premchand Mishra was posted as peon in Nagar Palika Nigam, Rewa, and was authorized to recover licence fee from the shop owners; at around 4:00 p.m. he reached to the shops installed on the footpath of Padra; the accused was also running a shop on this place; the complainant demanded Re.1/- from him as licence fees upon which accused gave him obscene abuses and twisted his index finger of left hand resulting into bleeding and fracture; the complainant was obstructed in discharge of his official duty and was also abused and injured, therefore he got the FIR registered against the accused upon which investigation was held and the charge-sheet was filed. In the ensuing trial, the impugned judgment was passed holding the accused guilty and sentencing him as discussed above.

3. The grounds raised in this criminal appeal are that the learned trial court failed to appreciate the evidence meticulously; not a single eyewitness was examined before the trial court and the accused was convicted simply on the testimony of complainant; there was no proof available on record that the complainant was discharging any duty as public servant at the time of incident;

it was admitted by complainant that the place of incident was beyond the Nagar Nigam area, hence no licence fees could have been recovered by complainant in that area; he was apparently extorting the money; a counter-case was filed against the complainant in which he was tried for the offence of Sections 294 and 325 IPC; that matter was disposed of on a compromise reached between the parties and the complainant was acquitted. It is prayed that in the light of these facts, benefit of probation should have been given to the accused or else he should have been acquitted.

4. State has opposed the present appeal.

5. Counsel for both the parties have been heard and the record of the court below has been perused.

6. This is a case of using criminal force to deter a public servant from discharging his official duty, therefore the prosecution had to prove that complainant was a public servant and was caused hurt while he was executing his official work. To prove these facts, prosecution has relied upon the testimony of Chandramaul Pandey (P.W.5) who was posted as Commissioner, Nagar Nigam, Rewa, since 1.11.1999. The date of incident in this case is 29.10.1996. Chandramaul Pandey (P.W.5) has only proved the fact that the certificate of Ex.P-6 bears the signature of Revenue Officer, Chateshwar Prasad Pandey, who had signed this document on behalf of Commissioner, Nagar Nigam, Rewa. No other officer of Nagar Nigam, Rewa, has been examined in the case.

7. The testimony of Chandramaul Pandey (P.W.5) proves merely the fact that the complainant was posted in the Office of Nagar Nigam, Rewa, as peon but this witness was not aware of the period since when the complainant was holding the post. The posting period of Chandramaul Pandey (P.W.5) in the Office of Nagar Nigam, Rewa, was from 1.11.1999, therefore he could not have any personal knowledge whether on the date of incident i.e. 29.10.1996 the complainant was posted as peon in that office or not. The person who issued the certificate of Ex.P-6, namely Chateshwar Prasad Pandey, was not examined in the case.

8. The above discussion leads to the inference that Chandramaul Pandey (P.W.5) po