Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Babulal Kanaiyalal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Application for Revision No. 86 of 1908
Judge
Reported in(1908)10BOMLR761
AppellantEmperor
RespondentBabulal Kanaiyalal
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
penal code (act xlv of i860), sections 21, 186-public servant-clerk in the cess-collection department of a district municipality-obstruction to the public servant.; a clerk in the cess-collection department of the district municipality constituted under the bombay district municipalities act (bombay act iii of 1901), is a public servant within the meaning of section 21(10) of the indian penal code, 1860. to offer any obstruction to him is punishable under section 186 of the code. - - the bill not having been paid notice of demand in the statutory form prescribed in schedule b was served upon the accused and on his failure to pay a warrant was served upon him by the complainant lakshmishankar maganlal who was a clerk in the cess-collection department of the ahmedabad municipality......in the execution of the warrant. for this he has been charged under section 186 of the indian penal code and there is no doubt that he is guilty if the complainant was a public servant executing his duty within the meaning of that section of the indian penal code.2. public servants are defined by the penal code, section 21. clause (10) of that section includes in the term 'public servant' every officer whose duty it is as such officer to receive any property for the secular purpose of any taluka or district.3. we are of opinion that the complainant being clerk in the cess-collection department of the municipality falls within the words of clause (10), which we have read, and we are supported in that conclusion by the judgment of this court delivered in the case of reg v. nantamram.....
Judgment:

Basil Scott, C.J.

1. The accused and his wife were living together in a house in Ahmedabad and were liable for Rs. 2-1-0, in respect of privy tax for the house they were living in under Section 82 of Act III of 1901. A bill for the sum claimed for the tax was presented to the accused although the bill itself was made out in the name of his wife. The bill not having been paid notice of demand in the statutory form prescribed in Schedule B was served upon the accused and on his failure to pay a warrant was served upon him by the complainant Lakshmishankar Maganlal who was a clerk in the Cess-collection Department of the Ahmedabad Municipality. When the warrant of attachment was taken to the accused for execution according to law the accused obstructed the complainant in the execution of the warrant. For this he has been charged under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code and there is no doubt that he is guilty if the complainant was a public servant executing his duty within the meaning of that section of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Public servants are defined by the Penal Code, Section 21. Clause (10) of that section includes in the term 'public servant' every officer whose duty it is as such officer to receive any property for the secular purpose of any Taluka or District.

3. We are of opinion that the complainant being clerk in the Cess-collection Department of the Municipality falls within the words of Clause (10), which we have read, and we are supported in that conclusion by the judgment of this Court delivered in the case of Reg v. Nantamram Uttamram (1869) 6 B. H. C. Cr. C. 64,

4. We, therefore, think that the conviction was right and we dismiss the application.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //