Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Analysis and ConclusionNo direct source links IPC Section 353 (deterring public servant duty via force) to no attendance sheet; however, attendance sheets prove duty performance/absence in public servant disciplinaries, enabling charge-sheets for negligence (e.g., unsigned registers as misconduct evidence). Lack of sheets undermines authenticity/transparency claims, while Section 353 applies to external obstructions, not internal attendance lapses. Courts emphasize accountability via attendance marking post-charge-sheet. ["Sureddy Srinivas VS State of Andhra Pradesh - Andhra Pradesh"] ["Deepak Kumar Sinha VS Bank Of India - Patna"] ["CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION vs RAMAYANA PRESS - Delhi"]
In legal disputes involving public servants, questions often arise about the evidence needed to establish an offence under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). A common query is: 353 no attendance sheet of public servant – does the absence of an attendance sheet doom a case under this section? This blog post dives into the essentials of Section 353 IPC, analyzes judicial precedents, and clarifies the role (or lack thereof) of attendance records. While courts have consistently ruled that such sheets are not mandatory, other critical elements like the accused's knowledge of the public servant's status and duty are pivotal. Note: This is general information based on case law; consult a legal professional for advice specific to your situation.
Section 353 IPC punishes whoever assaults or uses criminal force to deter a public servant from discharging their duty. The punishment can extend to two years' imprisonment, fine, or both. The section protects public servants acting in their official capacity, ensuring they can perform duties without fear of interference.
Key ingredients include:- The victim must be a public servant as defined under Section 21 IPC.- They must be discharging or attempting to discharge official duties.- The accused must use assault (Sections 351 IPC) or criminal force (Section 350 IPC).- The act must be intended to deter the public servant from duty.
A minister presiding over an advisory committee meeting qualifies as a public servant on duty, validating charges under Section 353: Held, that the Minister is a public servant is not disputed. In accordance with the instructions issued by the Government he was to preside Over the meetings of the Advisory Committee. He was doing so as Minister and in execution and discharge of his duty as such public servant... A charge framed u/s 353 I.P.C. is therefore valid. Dattatraya Narayan Patil VS State Of Maharashtra - 1975 0 Supreme(SC) 162
No legal document mandates an attendance sheet as proof that a public servant was on duty under Section 353 IPC. Courts have repeatedly held that Section 353 can be established through other record evidence demonstrating duty status, but the accused's knowledge of that status is crucial. Lack of such knowledge fatally undermines the offence Shaikh Salim VS State of Maharashtra - 2011 0 Supreme(Bom) 271Shaikh Khaled s/o Shaikh VS State of Maharashtra - 2011 0 Supreme(Bom) 269.
In essence:- Attendance sheets are not required: No precedent treats their absence as conclusive against prosecution. Other evidence, like witness testimony, can suffice if it proves duty execution.- Focus on prima facie ingredients: Charges fail without proof of assault, force, or intent to deter, regardless of attendance records Paresh VS State of Maharashtra - 2022 0 Supreme(Bom) 1805Nikheelchandra Anil Zode VS State of Maharashtra - 2024 0 Supreme(Bom) 372.
For instance, proceedings were quashed where no assault or force deterred duty: for an offence under Section 353, there must be an assault or criminal force against a public servant, which was absent in this case Paresh VS State of Maharashtra - 2022 0 Supreme(Bom) 1805. Similarly, pulling a judicial officer or verbal exchanges do not qualify: This, in our view, would not attract the provisions of Section 353 of the IPC moreso, the act of pulling Respondent No. 2 to make her sit on the chair would not fall within the meaning of the term 'force' and 'criminal force' or 'assault' ... There has to be some nexus between the use of force which would deter a public servant from discharging his duties. Nikheelchandra Anil Zode VS State of Maharashtra - 2024 0 Supreme(Bom) 372
Even if duty is proven, the accused must know the victim was a public servant on duty. Courts acquit or quash where nothing on record shows this: The offence u/s 353 is also not made out against the appellant, as it is nothing on record to show that appellant is having knowledge of the fact that PW No.2 was a public servant and was on his duty. In absence of this no offence u/s 353 is made out against the appellant Shaikh Salim VS State of Maharashtra - 2011 0 Supreme(Bom) 271Shaikh Khaled s/o Shaikh VS State of Maharashtra - 2011 0 Supreme(Bom) 269.
This holding underscores that attendance sheets, while potentially supportive, are irrelevant if knowledge isn't established via any probative evidence. Identification scrutiny is also heightened without prior acquaintance or parades: When complainant was not knowing the accused persons and no identification parade has been done, the learned Lower Court ought to have scrutinized the evidence of P.W. No.2 and P.W. 6 with more precaution Shaikh Salim VS State of Maharashtra - 2011 0 Supreme(Bom) 271Shaikh Khaled s/o Shaikh VS State of Maharashtra - 2011 0 Supreme(Bom) 269.
Courts frequently intervene where essentials are missing:- Prosecution failure: Acquittal upheld as Prosecution failed to prove that respondent assaulted PWs or used criminal force against them or that they were deterred from discharging their duties as public servant - No fault could be found with finding of Trial Court - Order of acquittal affirmed State of Maharashtra VS Sou. Vaijayanti Vasant Ghadi - 2012 0 Supreme(Bom) 1695.- Non-qualifying acts: Facebook comments criticizing police don't meet ingredients Aniket Anant Lale VS Prakash Balu Lale - 2018 0 Supreme(Bom) 418.- Positive charges: Valid where status and duty are undisputed, sans attendance proof Dattatraya Narayan Patil VS State Of Maharashtra - 1975 0 Supreme(SC) 162.
In procedural contexts, like rowdy sheets under police manuals, Section 353 requires a charge sheet for escalation, but opening such sheets prematurely violates rights: Offences under Section 353 fall under specific clauses, but require charge sheet filing; absent that, actions like rowdy sheets are illegal and violative of Article 21 V. Eswarudu Siva VS State of Andhra Pradesh - 2020 Supreme(AP) 77.
Attendance records appear in diverse legal scenarios, but rarely dictate Section 353 outcomes. For example:- In RTI matters, public authorities must maintain transparency, including CPIO appointments from administrative sections to avoid doubts on access, indirectly touching public servant duties Praveen Kumar vs CPIO, Satyajit Ray Film and Television Institute - 2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 4331.- Procedural lapses, like witness examination absent accused (violating CrPC Section 273, akin to old Section 353), vitiate trials Banchhanidhi Singh @ Nani Singh VS State of Orissa.- High court orders may require petitioners to mark attendance during bail-like conditions RAKESH @ CHOTI vs STATESONU @ SURAJ GOSWAMI vs STATE.- Chain of custody issues in other offences highlight proof burdens similar to Section 353 LAKSHMI Vs STATE OF KERALA - 2016 Supreme(Online)(KER) 41850.
These illustrate that while attendance sheets track presence in civil/administrative matters (e.g., NCLT order sheets DHARMVEER SINGH VS ROC KANPUR - 2019 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 4228), criminal cases under IPC prioritize substantive ingredients over formal records.
Disciplinary documents on charge-sheet service are irrelevant to Section 353 criminal proceedings Union Of India VS Dinanath Shantaram Karekar - 1998 6 Supreme 534State of U. P. VS Saroj Kumar Sinha - 2010 1 Supreme 561U. R. Bhatt VS Union Of India - 1960 0 Supreme(SC) 157State Of U. P. VS Shatrughan Lal - 1998 6 Supreme 587.
In summary, while an attendance sheet might bolster a case, Section 353 hinges on robust proof of intent and knowledge. Cases crumble without them, as seen across precedents. Stay informed on evolving jurisprudence, and always seek tailored legal counsel.
References:1. Shaikh Salim VS State of Maharashtra - 2011 0 Supreme(Bom) 271, Shaikh Khaled s/o Shaikh VS State of Maharashtra - 2011 0 Supreme(Bom) 269: Knowledge lack negates offence.2. Dattatraya Narayan Patil VS State Of Maharashtra - 1975 0 Supreme(SC) 162: Charge validity on clear duty.3. Paresh VS State of Maharashtra - 2022 0 Supreme(Bom) 1805, Nikheelchandra Anil Zode VS State of Maharashtra - 2024 0 Supreme(Bom) 372: Missing ingredients lead to quashing.4. State of Maharashtra VS Sou. Vaijayanti Vasant Ghadi - 2012 0 Supreme(Bom) 1695: Acquittal for proof failure.
#Section353IPC, #PublicServantDuty, #IPCLaw
Section 25 (5) of the RTI Act is issued to the Respondent Public Authority to appoint the designated CPIOs from their Administrative Section to maintain the balance of transparency in the system and create confidence in the public in general and among the student community in particular ... Such an arrangement of appointing/designating CPIO from Academic Section raises doubt about the approach of Respondent Public Authority towards RTI matters. ... The Commission, at the outset, confirmed that twelve Second Appeals of the Appellant agains....
Section 353 of IPC, which deals with an offence of assault or use of criminal force to deter a public servant from discharging his official duties. Section 353 of IPC reads as under:- “353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty. ... force with the intention to prevent or deter the public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant. ... Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the alleged a....
ENGINEER IN CHIEF PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH) 3. ... SERVENT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD, DIVSION, SEHROE (MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER (BY SHRI PRAVEEN DUBEY - ADVOCATE) AND 1. ... Petitioner's contention is that charge sheet was issued on 16.01.2015 thereafter without conducting a departmental enquiry, a show cause notice was issued. ... THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MANTRALAYA, VALLABH BHAWAN, (MADHYA PRADESH) 2. ... Respondents are set at libe....
, यू0पी0 पावर कार्पोरेशन लि0 व अन्य बनाम अनीस अहमद में पारित निर्णय दिनांक 01-07-2013 के अनुसार " It is clear that after notice of provisional assessment to person indulged in unauthorized use of electricity final decision by assessing officer, who is a public ... अपील संख्या: 353/2008 (जिला उपभोक्ता आयोग, कानपुर नगर द्वारा परिवाद संख्या- 550/2006 में पारित निर्णय एवं आदेश दिनांक 16-01-2008 के विरूद्ध) मैनेजिंग डायरेक्टर, केस्को, सिविल लाइन्स कानपुर
Section 273 of the new Code corresponds to Section 353 of the old Code. ... The order-sheet of the learned Sessions Judge dated on 22-7-1985 shows that as none appeared for the appellant in spite of repeated calls only the learned Public Prosecutor was heard and on 29-7-85 the judgment was pronounced dismissing the appeal. In Khaili & ors. v. ... The Criminal Appeal was heard on 22-7-1985 and on that day also at the time of hearing none appeared for the appellant and the judgment on merits was passed only on hearing the learned ....
Company restored, vide separate order sheet. ... NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL ITEM NO :9 ALLAHABAD BENCH C APPEAL NO.212/ALD/2019 ATTENDENCE - CUM-ORDER SHEET OF THE HEARING OF ALLAHABAD BENCH OF THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL ON 09.06.2020 at p
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge- sheet ... It is also ordered that the petitioner will mark his attendence Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public p style="position:absolute;white-space:pre;margin:0;padding:0;top:694pt;left:
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge- sheet ... It is also ordered that the petitioner will mark his attendence p style="position:absolute;white-space:pre;margin:0;padding:0;top:752pt;left
State of Kerala 2011 (3) KLT 353. 4. I heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. ... Fairness is the basic principle of a Public Servent while acting in an official capacity, they have to show fairness in their official act. PW2 is an independent witness, who did not support the prosecution case. PW4 prepared Ext.P11 scene mahazar and PW5 prepared Ext.P12 site plan. ... samples changed several hands before reaching the public analyst. ... State of Kerala (2011 (3) KLT 353). Para 13, r....
petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking for quashing of the said charge sheet. ... SERVENT, FLAT NO.1087, CTS NO.5607, SECTOR NO.6/1, SRINAGARA, BELAGAVI-590009. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ... C., learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that during the pendency of the above proceedings, charge sheet has been filed and hence he seeks permission to withdraw the above petition with liberty to file a fresh
Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, which is punishable with imprisonment for more than two years would fall under Clause 11 of Standing Order No. 601 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual. But, the requirement for opening of Rowdy Sheet even on the basis of commission of offence or assault of a public servant i.e. Section 353 I.P.C. is filing of charge sheet. In the present case, charge sheet is not filed and investigation is in progress, as per the allegations made in Paragraph No. 3 of the counter affidavit. Hence, the offences all....
Again on 21.12.1988 order-sheet was recorded showing the attendance of the parties in the Title Suit and separate order immediately below is recorded under the heading show cause showing the attendence only of plaintiff no. 2 and it is further stated that more than one month has lapsed since the registered notice was issued to the defendants but the acknowledgment card has not yet been received and thus, the registered service of notice is treated as valid, fixing the date on 22.12.1988 for filing show cause. Thereafter a separate heading of show cause is given in which the....
duties, there will be an inbuilt procedural safeguard provided for avoiding complaints, which if have no ground or material to proceed and as such, a public servant cannot file a complaint without following certain procedure and, at any rate, without any prima facie material showing that accused has committed offence or offences alleged. Normally, in such complaints filed by public servants, there will be documents. This is because whenever a public servent files a complaint acting or purporting to act in the discharge of.
The petitioners are entitled by virtue of the ranking for admission under OC category to the college of their choice and they shall be admitted within two weeks from the date of this order. The resultant equal number of vacancies shall be filled up by drawing the candidates belonging to the backward Class, Scheduled Caste and scheduled Tribe communities who will be next eligible. They are entitled for condonation of shortage of attendence.
This circumstance that the accused did not account for the deposits made by the customers and thus mis- appropriated those deposited amounts and that he showed false withdrawals debiting the amounts to the bank and thus diverted the said amounts for himself would prove that he dishonestly misappropriated the amounts. At any rate, it shows that he has disposed of the amounts entrusted to him in violation of the banking regulations. ( 23 ) IN regard to charge for an offence under Section 409 of IPC, the ingredient of entrustment of the property is thus satisfied. It is not disputed t....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
