EMPEROR Vs. MORESHWAR JANARDAN GOGATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case, the accused, a land-holder in the village of Jainsande, was, according to the prosecution case, in arrears to the extent of lis. 19-S-9 on account of land revenue for the year 1926-1927. On his failure to pay the same though demand was made several times, the Mamlatdar ordered the recovery of the arrears plus one-fourth line under Section 148 of the Land Revenue Code by attachment of the accused's moveable property. The complainant Balkrishna Ganesh Parnlekar, the Talathi, went to the accused's house on June 80, 1927, for recovery of the arrears and fine, but the accused refused to pay the arrears on the ground that the demand was not legal. The complainant attached a drinking vessel of copper which was forcibly taken away by the accused from the peon's hand. The accused was, therefore, charged under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code with causing obstruction to public servant in the discharge of his public functions. The accused was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100. The appeal preferred by the accused to the District Magistrate was transferred on the application of the accused to the High Court.

(2.) The accused's case in the lower Court was that he did not snatch the copper pot from the peon, but that on the accused telling the sepoy that he would snatch it, he placed it down. The accused, therefore, contended that there was no obstruction in fact, and that if there was an obstruction, the obstruction was not in the discharge of the complainant's public functions on the ground that the levy of the assessment was illegal, that the complainant was not discharging his public functions, and that his act in levying the assessment was ultra vires.

(3.) It is clear from the evidence of the complainant and the witness Sadu (Exhibit 7), and the Panchas (Exhibits 8 and 9), and from the Panchnama (Exhibit 6 B), that there was an obstruction in fact offered by the accused to the complainant in that the copper vessel was snatched by the accused. This finding is not challenged before us. It is urged on behalf of the accused that if the levy of the assessment by the complainant was illegal, the functions in the discharge of which he was obstructed were not public functions. Reliance is placed on the decisions in the cases of Queen-Empress V/s. Tulsiram (1888) I.L.R. 13 Bom. 168. and Emperor V/s. Kadarbhai in support of the contention that if the order, under which the public servant acts, is illegal or ultra vires, any obstruction caused to him would not be punishable under Section 186. It is urged on behalf of the accused that the order for the levy of the assessment was illegal as the increased assessment was not due from the accused for the year 1926- 1927. On July 5, 1926, Government sanctioned the rates which were varied to 33 per cent from 22. 63 per cent, the rates proposed by the Settlement Officer. Reliance is placed on Rule 17 in Anderson's Manual at page 11, and on the Survey and Settlement Manual, page 403, and it is urged that there ought to be two notifications, one District notification in the form of appendix I to the Land Revenue Code and a second notification in the Gazette in the form given at p. 403 of the Survey and Settlement Manual. It is further urged that if Government raised the rates proposed by the Settlement Officer, a fresh notice ought to bo issued and a fresh opportunity of objection must be afforded before the orders become final, and reliance is placed on Government Resolution No. 6141 of 1903 and note 19 at page 8 of Anderson's Manual It was suggested by reference to Exhibit 23, relating to the village of Vada, under which objections were invited within two months from the date of the notification, i. e. July 24, 1926, that the Government 1928 started fresh proceedings, and that on August 28, 1926, Government Resolution No. 3937 was issued declaring that the assess- meats referred to were fixed for a period of thirty years commeucing with the revenue year 1926-27 and ending with the revenue year 1955-56. The notification No. 5937 dated August Waa published on September 2, 1926, before the expiry of two months given by Exhibit 23. It is, therefore, urged that there was an omission to declare the sanction of Government under Section 102, that there waa an omission to issue a District notification and that Government was bound to wait for two months according to the notification, Exhibit 23. It is further urged that if these contentions are not correct and the introduction of survey settlement took place on September 2, 1926, by Goveroment Resolution No. 8937, the introduction was in the revenue year 1926- 27, and under Section 104 of the Land Revenue Code, remission ought to have been given for the excess revenue for the year 19 26-27.