Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a criminal complaint filed by Bachchoo Lal, an employee of Raja Kamlakar Singh of Shankargarh, who had taken a lease from the District Board, Allahabad, for realising bayai and bazaar dues in Shankargarh bazaar. On April 13, 1959, a peon of the Raja asked Shyam Lal Kurmi, who had sold linseed to Mewa Lal, to pay bayai dues. Mewa Lal told Shyam Lal not to pay and, armed with a lathi, approached Bachchoo Lal at the grain godown, abused him and threatened to break his limbs and kill him. Bachchoo Lal obtained sanction from the District Magistrate and filed a complaint against Mewa Lal under Section 107 of the United Provinces District Board Act, 1922, and Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The trial Magistrate convicted Mewa Lal under Sections 504 and 506 IPC and Section 107 of the Act. On appeal, the Sessions Judge acquitted Mewa Lal, holding that proper sanction under Section 182 of the Act was not proved, that the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction over Section 506 Part II IPC, and that the Section 504 case was suspicious. Bachchoo Lal, after obtaining permission from the High Court under Section 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appealed to the High Court, which dismissed the appeal, further holding that the sanction was in favour of the Raja and not Bachchoo Lal, and that the Raja could not collect Tah Bazari through agents. Bachchoo Lal appealed to the Supreme Court after obtaining a certificate under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution. Before the Supreme Court, three contentions were raised: that the Sessions Judge ought to have given notice to the complainant; that the High Court erred in holding the Raja could not collect through agents; and that the sanction under Section 182 was valid. The Supreme Court found the third contention correct, as the sanction was in favour of several employees including Bachchoo Lal. It did not express an opinion on the second contention because the terms of the lease were not before the Court and civil rights were not in issue. The Court then interpreted Section 107 of the Act, noting it penalizes obstruction or molestation of two classes of persons: persons employed by the District Board and persons under contract with the Board. Since Bachchoo Lal was not employed by the Board but was an employee of the contractor (Raja), and the person under contract was the Raja, not Bachchoo Lal, Section 107 did not cover the alleged obstruction of Bachchoo Lal. The Court did not hear arguments on the merits of Section 504 IPC and accepted the High Court's finding. Given that Section 107 did not apply, no interference with the acquittal on merits was possible, and therefore the first question about notice was not decided. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Statutory Offence - Obstruction of a Contractor's Employee - United Provinces District Board Act, 1922, Section 107 - Accused allegedly obstructed and abused complainant, who was an employee of a lessee collecting Tah Bazari dues on behalf of the District Board - Supreme Court interpreted Section 107 as penalizing only obstruction of persons employed by the District Board or persons under direct contract with the Board, not employees of a contractor - Held that complainant was merely an employee of the lessee and not protected under Section 107, so acquittal of accused on this count was correct (Paras 1-4). B) Criminal Procedure - Sanction for Prosecution - Validity of Sanction under Section 182 - United Provinces District Board Act, 1922, Section 182 - High Court had held sanction was in favour of the Raja and not the complainant, but Supreme Court found the sanction was in favour of several employees including complainant - Held that complainant had requisite sanction; however this did not cure lack of protection under Section 107, so acquittal remained (Paras 1-4). C) Criminal Procedure - Right of Complainant to Notice in Appeal - Natural Justice and Section 417(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure - Complainant contended that Sessions Judge should have given notice before acquitting accused - Supreme Court did not decide this question because appeal could be disposed of on merits under Section 107 and Section 504, and no interference with acquittal was possible - Not decided (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Section 107 of United Provinces District Board Act, 1922 penalizes obstruction of an employee of a person under contract with the Board; whether sanction under Section 182 was valid; whether complainant was entitled to notice of appeal before Sessions Judge
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of respondent No.2. It held that Section 107 of the United Provinces District Board Act, 1922 does not penalize obstruction of an employee of a person under contract with the Board; the sanction under Section 182 was valid but did not affect the outcome; first contention regarding notice was not decided.
Law Points
- Section 107 of United Provinces District Board Act
- 1922 penalizes obstruction of only persons employed by District Board or persons under direct contract with Board
- not employees of contractor
- sanction under Section 182 of Act may be valid in favour of employees of contractor
- acquittal on merits not interfered
