Case Note & Summary
The case arose from an incident where the appellants obstructed and assaulted two public servants who were executing a decree of a civil court. The appellants were initially charged under Sections 143, 402, 186, and 353 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court acquitted all the appellants. On appeal by the State, the Orissa High Court set aside the acquittal, convicting the appellants under Section 353 IPC while acquitting them under Sections 143 and 402 IPC, and held that the prosecution under Section 186 IPC was barred by Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 because there was no written complaint of the public servant as required by that section. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave, contending that the prosecution under Section 353 IPC was also barred by Section 195 CrPC since the same set of facts constituted the offence under Section 186 IPC. The Supreme Court considered the distinct nature of the two offences, noting that Section 186 relates to obstruction of a public servant while Section 353 deals with assault or criminal force to deter a public servant. The Court held that Section 195 CrPC does not bar the trial for a distinct offence merely because it arises from the same facts as an offence mentioned in that section, unless there is an attempt to camouflage or evade the procedural requirement. On the facts, the Court found no such evasion and upheld the conviction under Section 353 IPC. The Court also held that the High Court was justified in interfering with the order of acquittal based on the evidence. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Cognizance of Offences - Sections 186 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code are distinct offences; Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 does not bar trial for the distinct offence under Section 353 even though it is based on the same facts as the offence under Section 186, provided there is no camouflage or evasion to circumvent the section - Held that the prosecution under Section 353 was maintainable. (Paras 640 E, 641
E)
B) Criminal Law - Appeal Against Acquittal - High Court was justified in interfering with the trial court's order of acquittal on the evidence, following the principles laid down in Sanwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Agarwal and Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra. (Paras 640 E, 641 E)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution for an offence under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code is barred by Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 when the same set of facts also discloses an offence under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Sections 186 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code are two distinct offences and Section 353 is not mentioned in Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The trial for the distinct offence under Section 353 was not barred even though it was based on the same facts as the prosecution under Section 186, as there was no camouflage or evasion to circumvent the section. The High Court was justified in interfering with the order of acquittal and convicting the appellants under Section 353 IPC.
Law Points
- Two distinct offences under same facts
- Section 195 CrPC bar limited to specified offences
- no camouflage or evasion to circumvent section
- High Court justified in interfering with acquittal based on evidence
Case Details
1966 LawText (SC) (02) 27
Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 1964
Ramaswami, V.; Subbarao, K.
1966 AIR 1775, 1966 SCR (3) 636
R. K. Garg, S. C. Agarwala, M. K. Ramamurthy, D. P. Singh (for the appellants); H. R. Khanna and R. N. Sachthey (for the respondent)
Durgacharan Naik and Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code after the High Court set aside an acquittal.
Remedy Sought
The appellants sought to have their conviction under Section 353 IPC set aside on the ground that the prosecution was barred by Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
Filing Reason
The appellants contended that since the same set of facts also constituted an offence under Section 186 IPC, which requires a written complaint of the public servant under Section 195 CrPC, the prosecution for the offence under Section 353 IPC was likewise barred.
Previous Decisions
The trial court acquitted the appellants under all charges. On appeal, the Orissa High Court convicted the appellants under Section 353 IPC, acquitted them under Sections 143 and 402 IPC, and held that the prosecution under Section 186 IPC was barred by Section 195 CrPC.
Issues
Whether the prosecution for an offence under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code is barred by Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 when the same set of facts also discloses an offence under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code.
Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the order of acquittal passed by the trial court.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellants argued that the prosecution under Section 353 IPC was also barred by Section 195 CrPC because the facts disclosing the offence under Section 186 IPC formed the basis of both charges, and the protection of Section 195 should extend to the distinct offence of assault.
Ratio Decidendi
Sections 186 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code relate to two distinct offences. Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 does not bar the trial of an accused person for a distinct offence disclosed by the same set of facts but which is not within the ambit of that section, unless there is camouflage or evasion to circumvent the section.
Judgment Excerpts
Sections 186 and 353, Indian Penal Code, relate to two distinct offences and s. 353 is not referred to in s. 195 Cr.P.C.
Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code, does not bar the trial of an accused person for a distinct offence disclosed by the same set of facts, but which is not within the ambit of that section, when there is no camouflage or evasion to circumvent the Section.
the High Court was justified, on the evidence, in interfering with the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court in regard to that charge.
Procedural History
The appellants were charged under Sections 143, 402, 186, and 353 of the Indian Penal Code for obstructing and assaulting public servants executing a decree. The trial court acquitted them. The State appealed to the Orissa High Court, which convicted the appellants under Section 353 IPC, acquitted them under Sections 143 and 402 IPC, and held that the prosecution under Section 186 IPC was barred by Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898: Section 195
- Indian Penal Code: Sections 143, 186, 353, 402
