1. In this case the complainant, a cadastral surveyor, received an application from the District Inspector of Land Records for measuring and demarcating the boundaries of survey No. 111 on April 1, 1927. On May 4, while he was measuring the land and fixing the boundaries the accused snatched the crowbar from the hands of one Ishwara Mahar who was digging a hole for fixing a stone at the place fixed by the complainant after the measurements were taken. The complainant made a Panchnama, Ex. 2C, and a report, and in consequence of the report a complaint was filed against the accused under Section 186, Indian Penal Code. The accused was convicted by the Second Class Magistrate, Barsi, and on appeal the District Magistrate has confirmed the conviction.
2. It is urged on behalf of the applicant that the complainant was not discharging public functions, and, therefore, the accused is not guilty under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code. Under Section 119, Clause 2, of the Land Revenue Code, when a dispute arises concerning the boundary of any survey number at any time after the completion of a survey, it shall be determined by the Collector, who shall be guided by the land records if they afford satisfactory evidence of the boundary previously fixed, and if not, by such other evidence as he may be able to procure. The powers of the Collector under this section are delegated to the Mamlatdar under Nos. 60 and 61 of Revenue Department No. 5295 dated June 1, 1911, and under Rule 9(a) of the Standing Orders of the Land Record Establishments, the District Inspector is required to send measurement cases for measurement to the Circle Inspector. The Circle Inspector in this case h represented by the complainant who is a cadastral surveyor. Under Rule 15 of the Land Revenue Rules, 1921, for all lands which shall be hereafter surveyed, it shall be the duty of the Director of Land Records to cause to be corrected any arithmetical or clerical error whenever discovered, and to cause to be incorporated punctually in the land records all changes in the boundaries; and Rule 21, Clause (2), says:-
Where there is any dispute, the boundary to which the dispute relates shall be measured and mapped in accordance with the claims of both disputants, and the dispute entered in the register of disputed cases. After the dispute has been settled under Section 37 and Rules 119-120, or Rule 108, as the case may be, the map shall be corrected accordingly and the areas finally entered into the land records.
3. It is clear, therefore, that the Mamlatdar had the power to determine the boundary under Section 119, Clause 2, and the complainant had jurisdiction to measure the land and map it in accordance with the claims of both the disputants. In Rule 25 roughly dressed long stones are prescribed to be boundary marks for the purpose of demarcating the boundaries of survey numbers. It is clear, therefore, that the complainant was performing his legitimate functions under the rules under the Land Revenue Code, and the obstruction caused by the accused would fall within Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. It is urged that the obstruction was not made to the complainant but to Ishwara who was acting not under the orders of the complainant surveyor but was acting under the instructions of one Bodhala who was the adversary of the accused and had complained to the Mamlatdar. It appears from the evidence that Ishwara was acting not under the instructions of Bodhala, the accused's adversary, but was acting under the orders of the surveyor. In Emperor v. Bhaga Mana (1927) 30 Bom. L.R. 364 where a Circle Inspector, acting under the orders of the District Deputy Collector, went to the compound of the accused, with a Panch and the son of a village servant, to remove a portion of the hedge which was an encroachment, and the accused obstructed the servant and caught hold of his scythe and threatened him, it was held that the accused had committed an offence punishable under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code, since the act of the accused in laying hold of the scythe was an act of physical obstruction, and the obstruction offered to the servant was tantamount to obstruction to the Circle Inspector under whose orders he was acting. The cases of Queen 'Empress v. Tulsvram I.L.R. (1888) 13 Bom. 186 and Emperor v. Kadarbhai : AIR1927Bom483 relied on behalf of the applicant, have no application to the present case. In Queen-Empress v. Tulsiram the decree passed by the Mamlatdar was outside the jurisdiction of Mamlatdar, and the execution of his order was sought to be effected not by the Mamlatdar but under the orders of the Collector who had no power under the Mamlatdars Courts Act to execute the decree of the Mamlatdar. In Emperor v. Kadarbhai it is clear that the officer had no jurisdiction to impose the duty which was levied on the accused in respect of the timber which was imported from the Indore State. The action, therefore, of the officer was outside his legitimate functions. In the present case it is clear that the complainant was performing his legal and legitimately authorized public functions, and the obstruction offered to Ishwara was clearly an obstruction to the complainant, and the accused was rightly convicted under Section 186. We would, therefore, confirm the conviction and the sentence of the accused and discharge the rule.