1. The argument is not clearly detailed in the grounds of the application for revision. The allegation of the Nagina Municipality was that Abdul Rashid had introduced a parcel into the municipality without payment of octroi duty and had obstructed the municipal peons in the discharge of their duties when they demanded an examination of the parcel for the purposes of levying octroi duty. Abdul Rashid was prosecuted under Section 155, Municipalities Act, for evasion of octroi duty and acquitted on the ground that the case was an old one and the complainant had not put in his appearance. The present prosecution is started for obstructing the municipal peons and the acquittal under Section 155 Municipalities Act, is put forward as a bar to the present prosecution under Section 403, Criminal P.C. The two offences, however, were quite distinct and committed against distinct persons. The evasion of octroi duty caused loss to the municipality, while the obstruction of the public servants was an offence against the municipal peons independently of harm done to the municipality.
2. Abdul Rashid was also previously prosecuted by the police under Section 353 for assaulting the peons and was convicted under Section 186 by the Magistrate. The case as put in revision before me was that Abdul Rashid was acquitted of an offence under Section 353 and he could not be prosecuted on the same facts for an offence under Section 186. If Abdul Rashid had really been acquitted of the offence under Section 353, the argument would have been correct. The Magistrate in his judgment of 3rd December 1929, has, however, stated that he did not frame a charge under Section 353. This is tantamount to the discharge of the accused from that offence and not to an acquittal.
3. Finally, though the appellant was convicted under Section 186 by the Magistrate, the Sessions Judge acquitted the applicant on the ground that the conviction was recorded without the sanction necessary under Section 195, Criminal P.C. and that therefore the Magistrate had no jurisdiction. It has been held by this Court that in such a case the provisions of Section 403, Criminal P.C. will not bar a second prosecution: Emperor v. Jiwan  37 All. 107. I desire, however, to interfere and put an end to these repeated prosecutions. If the Magistrate had acted correctly on 3rd December 1926, he ought to have acquitted the applicant under Section 353. There has been laxity on the part of the municipality during the different prosecutions and I am of opinion that the provisions of Section 95, I.P.C., may be applied to this case. If any offences were committed by Abdul Rashid, the offences of gravity were, his evasion of the payment of octroi duty and the causing of hurt to the peons. The municipality was not sufficiently active in proving these charges. The charge of obstructing the peons is very slight, so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm.
4. I direct that no further proceedings would be taken against Abdul Rashid and dismiss the complaint made against his under Section 186, I.P.C.