Anil M. Bande and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

¶1

Tauseef Farooqui 03-REVN.607.2019.odt

¶2

TAUSEEF LAIQUEE FAROOQUI

¶3

Digitally signed by TAUSEEF LAIQUEE FAROOQUI Date: 2022.11.14 17:53:27 +0530

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

REVISION APPLICATION NO.607 OF 2019

¶6

Anil M. Bande & Ors. …Applicants
V/s.
State of Maharashtra …Respondent

¶7

*****

¶8

Mr. Sachin S. Thambare for Applicants.

¶9

Ms. G. P. Mulekar, APP for Respondent (State).

¶10

*****

¶11

CORAM:AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATE:NOVEMBER 10, 2022

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

1.The applicants are challenging legality and validity of
order dated 3rd October 2019, passed by Additional Sessions
Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No.174 of 2019 rejecting application
for discharge of accused under Section 227 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. The incident has alleged by the prosecution is of
16th January 2016.

¶14

2.The complainant who was working as Junior Engineer
in Shirur Municipal Council came in the premises of the council to
attend his duty. At that time, the applicants alongwith others did
not allowed the officers and staff of council to enter the council
premises. It is also alleged that there was abusive language used
by the applicants alongwith others against the officers of council,
and therefore, first information report came to be lodged against

¶15

1

¶16

Tauseef Farooqui 03-REVN.607.2019.odt

¶17

the applicants and others. After completion of investigation
charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons for offences
under Sections 353, 341, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860.

¶18

3.The applicants thereafter filed an application for
discharge alleging that the ingredients of Section 353 of Indian
Penal Code are not attracted. Learned Sessions Judge after
considering the material on record rendered a finding that the
statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, prima facie disclosed that the public
servants intended to go inside the office premises to perform their
duty were restrained by the applicants at the entrance of office
which prima facie constitutes offence under Sections 350 and 351
of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on the basis of material
on record rendered a finding that the material on record is
sufficient to proceed against the applicants in the trial.

¶19

4.Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that
assuming the statement under Section 161 is correct still it would
not constitute offence under Section 353 of Indian Penal Code,
1860, as they were not restrained while performing their duties in
the office. It is only when they are restrained while performing the
duty the essentials of offence under Section 353 of Indian Penal
Code,1860, can be set to be fulfilled.

¶20

5.In the context of submissions made on behalf of
applicants, I have perused the statement of the complainant. In

2

03-REVN.607.2019.odt

Tauseef Farooqui

the statements under Section 161 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, the
complainant has specifically stated that the applicants alongwith
others restrained the employees of Municipal Council from
entering the building of Municipal Council, with the result they
could not perform their official duty. The applicants are named in
the statement under Section 161 by giving details of the acts
committed by the applicants. On perusal of the statement of
witnesses, in my opinion, there is sufficient ground to proceed
against the applicants.

¶25

6.I do not find any merit in the submissions made on
behalf of the applicants that the essentials of offence under Section
353 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, can be fulfilled only when they
were restrained while performing their duties. Section 353 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860, reads as under;

¶26

“353. A careful perusal of Section 353, it is clear
that any person whoever assaults or uses criminal
force to any person being a public servant in the
execution of his duty as such public servant, or
with intent to prevent or deter that person from
discharging his duty as such public servant, or in
consequence of anything done or attempted to be
done by such person in the lawful discharge of his
duty as such public servant, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to two years.”

¶27

3

¶28

Tauseef Farooqui 03-REVN.607.2019.odt

¶29

7.Prima facie the material on record shows that
applicants have prevented or deterred the employees of Municipal
Council from entering the Municipal Council building which prima
facie is sufficient to constitute offence under Section 353 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and therefore, submission on behalf of
the applicants cannot be accepted.

¶30

8.The impugned order is not manifestly perverse not
resulted in miscarriage of justice. There is no merit, therefore, the
Application dismissed.

¶31

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶32

4

Anil M. Bande and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil M. Bande and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Champaklal Mehta Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dadarao Abarao Raut and Ors. Vs Mumbai District Central Co. Operative Bank Ltd. and Anr.

Dadarao Abarao Raut and Ors. Vs Mumbai District Central Co. Operative Bank Ltd. and Anr.

Dilip @ Delip Vasantrao Bagul Vs M/S Prefeb Engineering Private Limited through Amit Pangam and Anr.

Rajkumar Chainrai Basantani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ashish Sanjao Dabre Vs State of Maharashtra