Chand Prakash vs Bega Ram and Another

Amaresh ku. Singh, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the lower Court.

This petition is directed against the order dated 7.1.1988 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 75 of 1986. By the above mentioned order the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, discharged the petitioner of the offences under Sections 427 and 430 of the Indian but found a prima facie case to frame charge u/s 166 of the Indian Penal Code.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the facts as alleged by the prosecution do not constitute any of offence u/s 166 of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, in trial of the petitioner on charge u/s 166 of the Indian Penal Code amounts to abuse of the process of the court and deserves to be quashed. The learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned order.

According to complaint filed by the non petitioner No. 2 the complainant''s father owned agricultural lands which are irrigated by the water of Bhakhra canal. In a family settlement, the complainant was given 9 bighas of land. The petitioner was posted as Jiledar and according to allegations made in the complaint, the petitioner was entrusted with the duty of issuing slips authorising supply of water from the canal for irrigation of fields. The complainant (non-petitioner No. 2) repeatedly asked the petitioner to give him the slips authorising supply of canal water but the petitioner avoided the same on one pretext or the other. The complainant then approached the Executive Engineer, Hanumangarh. After inspection of the site the Executive Engineer directed the petitioner to issue slips for irrigation of the complainant''s field but the petitioner did not supply the same. The complainant then appeared before the Executive Engineer again and the latter ordered the petitioner to issue the slips for irrigation of fields to the complainant. The order was not complied with by the petitioner. Therefore, the complainant (non-petitioner No. 2) filed the complaint.

Ex. P 1 shows that the Executive Engineer, Pilibanga (Irrigation) directed the Jiledar Nohar Vide order dated 20.12.1982 to issue the slips for supply of water Ex. P 2 shows that the petitioner issued the slips for supply of water and sent them to the Tehsildar Nohar, with his letter dated 5.2.1982 and stated in the letter that the Executive Engineer had directed that the slips be sent to the Tehsildar. Ex. P 3 shows that the Tehsildar by his letter dated 6.4.1983 returned the slips to the Jiledar, Nohar with a direction that the slips be distributed by him as according to the practice which was in vogue, the slips were not distributed by the Tehsildar.

The oral evidence as well as the documentary evidence shows that the petitioner, avoided issuing slips authorising irrigation of fields by canal water, to the non-petitioner No. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case it may be said without hesitation that according to rules in force, he was bound to issue the slips in question to the non-petitioner No. 2, and he deliberately avoided giving slips to non-petitioner No. 2.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to accept this petition. Whoever being a Public Servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant intending to cause or knowing it to be likely that he will by such disobedience, cause injury to any person, is liable to be punished u/s 166 of the Indian Penal Code. The expression ''direction'' in Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code, includes both, the direction contained in the statute itself and the direction which may be given to a public servant by an authority competent to give directions under any law for the time being in force, mandating the doing of the act mentioned in the direction or avoidance of any act or omission. The petitioner has been rightly charged u/s 166 of the Indian Penal Code.

For reasons mentioned above, this petition has no force. It deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. A copy of this order along with the record of the lower Court by sent to the lower Court without any delay.