- (1.) THIS is a revision against the convictions and sentences of the accused under sec. 186 of the Penal Code.
(2.) THE case for the prosecution is that on the 20th of May, 1945, Dafedar Dhan Singh complainant under orders of Mr. Baney Singh, Hakim of Siwana, accompanied him for the purpose of measuring certain Chabutra in the town of Siwana. Two clerks Bachan Singh and Chander Singh and two Sowars Ram Singh and Akbar Khan also went with him. It is alleged that while Dhan Singh was measuring the Chabutra and its surroundings, the petitioners Manmal, his son Pukhraj, and Lakha along with many other persons formed themselves into a crowd and prevented the Dafedar from taking measurements. THE complaint was filed against II persons of whom eight were acquitted while the petitioners were convicted and sentenced as under: - Manmal: Under sec. 504 of the Penal Code to I month's S. I. and a fine of Rs. 200/ -. Under section 186 of the Penal Code to 15 day's S. I. and a fine of Rs. 230/ -. Pukhraj: Under section 186 of the Penal Code sentenced to a fine of Rs. 100/ -. Lakha: Under section 186 of the Penal Code sentenced to an imprisonment up to the rising of Court and a fine of Rs. 11/ -. On appeal, Manmal was acquitted on a charge under Sec. 504 of the Penal Code and the sentence of imprisonment under Sec. 186 was also set aside while maintaining the conviction on that charge. The conviction and sentence on Pukhraj was maintained while in respect of Lakha, the conviction was maintained but sentence of imprisonment up to the rising of the court was set aside. The fine of Rs. 11/- was maintained. It may be mentioned that the petitioners denied having obstructed the Dafedar in the business of taking measurements and pleaded that the case had been falsely instituted against them as there was some previous ill-will between the petitioners and Mr. Baney Singh. Pukhraj pleaded alibi and Lakha stated that he was not at the spot where the incident was alleged to have taken place. The prosecution was however, believed and resulted in the convictions and sentences of the accused as aforesaid. In this revision it is argued that the prosecution has failed to prove that the Dafedar was engaged in doing any public function at that time. The learned advocate comments on the omission of the prosecution to produce the order of the Ijlas-i-Khas in compliance whereof Mr. Baney Singh is alleged to have gone to the spot in order to take measurements. There is, however, the statement of Mr. Baney Singh who was Hakim at the time that he had gone to the spot along with the Dafedar, the clerks and Sowars in order to take measurements of the Chabutra in Patta proceedings by the Ijlas-i-Khas. The best evidence was no doubt the copy of the order of the Ijlas-i-Khas but it may be pointed out that Baney Singh was an executive Hakim and when he states that he considered it necessary to take the boundaries of the Chabutra, he was prima facie exercising a public duty when he went to the place. In any case, since the Dafedar was carrying out the orders of Baney Singh who was present on the spot, the Dafedar was performing a public duty. On what considerations Baney Singh gave Dafedar the order are only remotely relevant. The first contention of the learned counsel, therefore, falls to the ground. It was next argued that according to the evidence, a crowd had collected and it is possible that some people in the crowd may have acted in a way which led the Dafedar to believe that he was pushed but as a matter of fact it is not unusual when many people assemble in a small space that pushes are received and given without any intention to do so. This may be correct to some extent in a general way but in the present case there was evidence that the Dafedar was not only pushed but was abused and that when he asked the petitioners among others to step aside and let him take measurements, the accused refused to move and abused him. While it is true that the evidence as to the accused Manmal having abused Baney Singh was not believed for sustaining conviction under sec. 504 of the Penal Code on the ground that somebody else in the crowd may have abused him and Mr. Baney Singh may have made a mistake, the evidence of Baney Singh can be relied upon while considering the evidence whether the Dafedar was obstructed (1946 P. C. 16 ). I do not see why the very clear evidence of Baney Singh was disbelieved. The lower Court did not disbelieve the witness but only did not rely on that evidence on a suspicion that he may have made a mistake. In my opinion, the evidence of Baney Singh on the point that Manmal abused Baney Singh is reliable. Therefore, it is not a case where some one in the crowd may have not only pushed aside the Dafedar but on the evidence it must be held that the petitioners obstructed the Dafedar in the discharge of his duties by not moving away from the place when asked to do so and abusing and pushing him and thereby obstructing him in the discharge of his duties. It was next argued that the sentence was severe in view of the fact that the case had been hanging on for over six years. There is some force in the argument. I, therefore, accept this revision and while maintaining the conviction under s. 186 of the Penal Code, reduce the fine on Manmal from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 100/- and on Pukhraj from Rs. 100/-to Rs. 50/ -. The sentence on Lakha to pay a fine of Rs. 11/- is maintained. The revision is partially allowed. The excess fine if paid will be refunded. . ;