Bombay High Court
State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Washim vs Anantkumar Kisanrao Patil on 24 May, 2017
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
apeal742.03.odt 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.742 OF 2003
APPELLANT: State of Maharashtra through P. S. O.
Manora, Distt. Washim.
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENT: Anantkumar S/o Kisanrao Patil, aged
about 67 years, Occ.- Cultivator, R/o
Poharadevi Tq. - Manora, Distt. -
Washim.
Shri N. Patil, Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant.
None for respondent.
CORAM: A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
DATED : 25
MAY, 2017.
th
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal filed under Section 378(3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 takes exception to the judgment passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim in Criminal
Appeal No.30/2000 whereby the said appeal preferred by the
respondent has been allowed and the respondent has been
acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 186 and 506
Part II of the Indian Penal Code.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that land admeasuring
90R was allotted by the Collector in favour the Maharashtra State
Road Transport Corporation. Accused No.1 Gulab had erected
apeal742.03.odt 2/5
construction on a part of the said plot and hence, a notice was
issued to him to remove the same on 20-5-1996. The Tahasildar,
Naib Tahasildar and other officers from the Revenue Department
went to the spot for removing encroachment. Accused No.1 did
not comply with the directions, but instead called Accused No.2 -
respondent herein. Accused No.2 gave a threat that if the
encroachment is removed, the Tahasildar would be set on fire. On
that basis a report came to be lodged which resulted into
registration of the offence. The matter was investigated and both
the accused were tried.
3. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class by
judgment dated 11-4-2000 acquitted Accused no.1 but convicted
Accused No.2 under Section 506 Part II as well as under Section
186 of the Penal Code. An appeal was filed by the respondent
challenging his conviction and by the impugned judgment, said
conviction has been set aside. Being aggrieved, the State of
Maharashtra has come up in appeal.
4. Shri N. Patil, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
the appellant submitted that the Tahasildar, Naib Tahasildar and
other officers of the Revenue Department were discharging their
duties in their official capacity. The encroachment committed by
Accused No.1 was sought to be removed when Accused no.2
apeal742.03.odt 3/5
obstructed them and also gave threats if the encroachment was
attempted to be removed. He submitted that the learned Judge of
the Sessions Court gave undue importance to the absence of any
order directing removal of encroachment. According to him, the
said officers were present at the site only for the purpose of
removing the encroachment and hence, the appellate Court was
not justified in setting aside the conviction of the respondent.
5. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent.
However, with the assistance of the learned Counsel for the
appellant, I have perused the records and I have considered his
submissions.
6. It is to be noted that both the accused were initially
prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 353, 186 and
506 Part II of the Penal Code. The respondent was acquitted of
the offence punishable under Section 353 of the Penal Code. This
acquittal has attained the finality. In so far as the offence under
Section 186 of the Penal Code is concerned, the same
contemplates obstruction of a public servant in discharge of his
public functions. The Tahasildar and the Naib Tahasildar were
examined before the learned Magistrate. However, no order
directing the accused no.1 to remove the encroachment was
brought on record. If it was the case of the prosecution that the
apeal742.03.odt 4/5
land in question was allotted to the Maharashtra Road Transport
Corporation and it was encroached by Accused no.1, it was
necessary for the prosecution to have brought on record an order
by which the encroachment was directed to be removed. Under
Section 186 of the Penal Code, the discharge of public functions
was required to be brought on record. The learned Sessions Judge
in para 13 of the impugned judgment has clearly observed that
there was nothing on record to suggest that the action of removal
of encroachment was preceded by an order for removal of the
same. It is on that basis that the respondent was acquitted of the
said offence as no document indicating any order for removal of
encroachment was brought on record. Admittedly, there is no
such document/order on record by which Accused no.1 had been
called upon to remove the encroachment.
7. In so far as the offence under Section 506 Part II of the
Penal Code is concerned, it has been found that there was no
criminal intimidation caused by the respondent. In absence of any
such evidence, the acquittal of the respondent by the Sessions
Court also cannot be faulted.
7. I find that the evidence on record has been rightly
appreciated by the learned Sessions Judge while passing the
impugned judgment. The view as taken does not appear to be
apeal742.03.odt 5/5
perverse warranting interference with the order of acquittal of the
respondent.
8. In view of aforesaid discussion, the impugned
judgment is liable to be maintained. The appeal accordingly
stands dismissed. Order accordingly.
JUDGE
//MULEY//
