AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pandrang Row, J.—The petitioner in this case has been convicted of an offence punishable u/s 167, Clause 78 of the Sea Customs Act
(VIII of 1878) according to which the offence is denned as follows:
If any person intentionally obstructs any officer of Customs or other person duly employed for the prevention of smuggling, in the exercise of any
powers given under the Act to such officer or person.
The sentence imposed on the petitioner was modified in appeal into one directing him to execute a bond for his good behaviour for one year.
The only question that is argued in this petition, and that is an important question, is whether the facts as alleged and proved by the prosecution
constitute the offence in question, or to put it more clearly, whether tin facts constitute obstruction. The facts are briefly as follows: Two Customs,
peons who were stationed on a road to watch and arrest smugglers who were expected to pass along the road saw a by cycle being driven very
fast along the road and they shouted that they were customs men and wanted to search, la spite of this the cycle was ridden fast along a side track
and did not stop. It is alleged that this non stopping of the cycle of which the petitioner was the rider constitutes obstruction to the Customs Officer.
It is not alleged it anything else was done by the petitioner which constitutes obstruction. The point, therefore, for decision is whether failure to stop
when asked to stop by a Customs officer who has the right to stop suspected smugglers is an obstruction to the Customs Officer. I have no doubt
that this question has to be answered in the negative. Mere evasion or disobedience to a lawful order is not an obstruction to the officer who issues
the order. Obstruction implies some actual resistance offered to the public servant in the discharge of his duties. Obstruction is under certain
circumstances an offence u/s 188 and under certain other circumstances an offence u/s 225. I have been referred to the decisions relating to each
of the two offences, namely Queen-Empress v. Somanna 15 M 221 and Emperor v. Aijaz Hussain 38 A 506 : 35 Ind. Cas. 973 : 14 A.L.J. 731 :
17 Cri.L.J. 413 In my opinion reference to authorities is hardly required in dealing with a simple point like this. It seems to me hardly arguable. It
when a man runs away when asked to stop he is obstructing the man who asked him to stop. It follows, therefore, that the facts alleged and
proved in this case do not constitute the offence of which the petitioner has been convicted. The conviction of the petitioner must, therefore, be set
aside. The direction to the petitioner to execute a bond for his good behaviour for one year is set aside and that bond is cancelled and the
petitioner is acquitted.