State of H.P. vs Tarun, Deepa and Another

Surinder Singh, J.—The challenge in this appeal is to the acquittal of the Respondents in Police Challan No. 28-I/2002, decided on 1.7.2004 for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Heard and gone through the record.

Precisely, the case of the prosecution can be stated thus. In the year 2002, PW1 Smt. Urvashi Walia was posted as Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Mandi. The Municipal Council owned certain shops in the market which were rented out to the different shopkeepers on the basis of agreements. As per the agreement, no addition or alteration could be made by the tenants. It is alleged that in the month of February, 2002, the shopkeepers of shops No. 12, 19 and 20 tried to dig up the basement for constructing the store without seeking any permission from the Municipal Council and the alleged act of the Respondents was likely to cause damage to the parking area. On this, the Executive Officer (PW1 Urvashi Walia) issued notices to the Respondents on 19.2.2002 and visited the spot. She asked the reasons from the Respondents as to why they were involved in the illegal activities, but in turn she was threatened and obstructed from discharging her official duties. A complaint was made to the police, which culminated into present FIR for the offences under the aforesaid Sections of the Indian Penal Code.

Police investigated the matter, recorded the statements of the witnesses and took into possession the posting and joining report of PW1 Smt. Urvashi Walia and ultimately Challan was presented in the Court for the trial of the Respondents. They were accordingly charge-sheeted, tried and acquitted, hence the present appeal.

The positive case of the complainant has been that on coming to know about the illegal activities - 3 by the Respondents she had issued notices where they were digging the basement in order to convert into the store. Neither there is any complaint placed on record nor the notice alleged to have been issued to the Respondents. She also stated having referred the matter to the Executive Engineer with respect to the activities being done by the Respondents, but even that reference order did not find the light of the day.

Though the prosecution has been able to prove the fact that PW1 complainant was posted as Executive Officer in the Municipal Council, but there is absolutely nothing on record to substantiate the fact that she was acting in the discharge and execution of her official duties for that it was incumbent upon the prosecution to place and prove on record as to what were the duties of the Executive Officer in such a situation and further that in performance of such duties she was prevented or deterred by the Respondents in discharging of her official duties or attempted of discharge of her duties lawfully. Under the colour of the office, if an official does anything which is not a part and parcel of his/her official duty, any alleged determent would not constitute the offence - 4 punishable u/s 353 of the Indian Penal Code. In the instant case, the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of the offence aforesaid that in order to discharge her official duties lawfully the complainant was deterred/obstructed by the Respondents and also there is also no cogent evidence with respect to the other offences, for which Respondents stood charge-sheeted. Therefore, the acquittal of the Respondents cannot be interfered with. As such the appeal is dismissed being without merit.

The Respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them at any stage during the proceedings of this case.

Send down the records forthwith.