IPC – Offences against public servant – Part – 14

Chapter X of IPC deals with “contemplates of public authority of public servants” which consist of total 20 sections from 172 to 190 and 174A.

The court is barred from taking cognizance of any offences mentioned in section 172 to 188 under section 195 of the Cr.P.C., except on written complaint by a public servant concerned and private company will not be maintainable but if the public servant does not or refuses to make the complaint, some other pubic servant can file the complaint.[1] Without complaint made by senior, cognizance cannot be taken. If taken, the conviction of the applicant by the Panchayati Adalat of the offence under Section 172 shall be set aside.

(1) OFFENCES PERTAINING TO SERVICE OF SUMMONS OR ORDER

Sections 172, 173 and 174 punish the refusal or comply with a summons, a notice or an order issued by public servant in discharge of his official function. Section 172 punishes absconding to avoid service, section 173 preventing the delivery of service and section 174 punishes non-obedience to a summons, notice or order. Section 174A declared a serious offence under this chapter and states that it is an offence if a person has not surrender himself after declaring him a proclaimed offender.

(1.1) ABSCONDING TO AVOID SERVICE OF SUMMONS OR OTHER PROCEEDING

Section 172 says whoever absconds in order to avoid being served with a summons, notice or order, proceeding form any public servant legally competent, as such public servant, to issue such summons, notice or order, is a punishable offence under this section.

If the notice had been served on the applicant no offence under section 172 of IPC was made out. The gist of the offence is absconding of the person against whom summons has been issued by legal competent authority and he abscond himself from accepting such summons, as summons cannot be served to a woman or to a child, but can only be served to male person of the family. Section 172 of IPC makes absconding of a person in order to evade being served with a summons or notice an offence and does not make non-appearance of a person served with a summons or notice an offence. Non-appearance of a person served with a summons or notice is an offence under 174 of IPC.

(1.2) PREVENTING SERVICE OF SUMMONS OR OTHER PROCEEDING

Whoever in any manner intentionally prevents –

(i)      the serving on himself, or on any other person, or

(ii)     the lawful affixing to any place, or

(iii)    the lawful making of any proclamation, or

(iv)    intentionally removes,

any summons, notice or order proceeding from any public servant legally competent, as such public servant, to do that is an offence under section 173 of IPC.

This section declares above four acts as an offence but in all intention of the offender is gist of every sub offence declared by the section.

(1.3) NON-ATTENDANCE IN OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER FORM PUBLIC SERVANT

Whoever, being legally bound to attend in person or by an agent at a certain place and time in obedience to a summons, notice, order or proclamation proceeding from any public servant legally competent, as such public servant, to issue the same, intentionally omits to attend at that place of time, or departs form the place where he is bound to attend before the time at which it is lawful for him to depart, is an offence under section 174 of IPC.

There are three elements of section 174, namely – (i) legally bound to attend in person, (ii) legally competent to issue summons, and (iii) person intentionally omitted to attend.

Illustration.- A, being legally bound to appear before the High Court at Ahmedabad, in obedience to a summons issuing from that Court, intentionally omits to appear; or ‘A’, being legally bound to appear before a District Judge, Ahmedabad, as a witness, in obedience to a summons issued by that District Judge intentionally omits to appear. In both the cases, ‘A’ has committed the offence defined in section 174.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that section 57 of the Panchayat Raj Act empowers Nyaya Panchayat to take cognizance of an offence under section 174 of IPC, but the exercise of such a power will be a violation of the well-established principle of natural justice, “nemo debet esse judex in propria causa”. Section 174 of IPC, is one of the sections mentioned in section 195 of Cr.P.C. It would thus appear that asserting to the provisions of the Cr.P.C a Judge of a Criminal Court has no power to punish a person figuring as an accused before him if such person wilfully fails to appear before him in response to a summons or warrant issued against him. A Judge of a Criminal Court has, however, power to take cognizance of the offence if a witness who is legally bound to appear before him wilfully fails to appear in spite of being served with summons or notice.[2] The court held that the legislature did not contemplate that a Nyaya Panchayat should proceed under Section 174 of IPC, against an accused person who fails to appear before it.

Punishment.- The offender of section 172, 173 or 174 shall be punished with imprisonment up to one month or with fine up to Rs. 500 or with both; but when it was served in person, he is punishable with imprisonment up to six month or with fine up to Rs. 1000 or with both.

(1.4) NON-APPEARANCE IN RESPONSE TO A PROCLAMATION

Section 174A was inserted in IPC by Act 25 of 2005 w.e.f 23.6.2006. According to section 174A,

(i)      whoever fails to appear at the specified place and the specified time as required by a proclamation published under section 82(1) of the Cr.P.C., shall be punished with imprisonment up to three years or with fine or with both, and

(ii)     where a declaration has been made under sub-section (4) of that section pronouncing him as a proclaimed offender, he shall be punished with imprisonment up to seven years and fine.

It is well settle principle that non-appearance in response to proclamation under section 82 of Cr.P.C. constitutes a separate offence under Section 174A IPC. An offence under Section 174A, IPC can be made out only when the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. is issued and in response of that the accused fails to appear. The police before initiating an offence under section 174A has to make a request for the issuance of process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C (proclamation of offender). An offence under section 174A of IPC is an independent offence of being a proclaimed offender.

(2) OFFENCES BY OMISSION AND REFUSAL

Section 175 to section 180 and section 187 deals with offences committed by omission or refusal to do the act which he is bound to do that act, except its aggravated form, he shall be punished with simple imprisonment up to one month, or with fine up to Rs. 500, or with both. In aggravated form the person is punishable with imprisonment up to six month or with fine up to Rs. 1000 or with both.

(a) Omission to produce document.- Whoever, being legally bound to produce or deliver up any document or Electronic Record to any public servant, as such, intentionally omits so to produce or deliver up the same, is punishable under section 175. When the document or Electronic Record is to be produced or delivered up to a Court of Justice, it is aggravated form of the act and punished accordingly.

Illustration.- A being legally bound to produce a document before a District Court, intentionally omits to produce the same. A has committed the offence defined in this section.

 (b) Omission to give notice or information.- Whoever, being legally bound to give any notice or to furnish information on any subject to any public servant, as such, intentionally omits to give such notice or to furnish such information in the manner and at the time required by law, it is limited to murder, culpable homicide and specific offences relating property, is punishable under section 176.

When the notice or information (i) is required to be given respects the commission of an offence, or (ii) is required for the purpose or preventing the commission of an offence, or (iii) in order to the apprehension of an offender, it is aggravated form of the offence under section 176 and the offender is punished accordingly.

(c) Furnishing false information.- Whoever, being legally bound to furnish information on any subject to any public servant, as such, furnishes, as true, information on the subject which he knows or has reason to believe to be false, , it is limited to murder, culpable homicide and specific offences relating property, is punishable under section 177.

When the information which he (i) is legally bound to give respects the commission of an offence, or (ii) is required for the purpose of preventing the commission of an offence, or (iii) in order to the apprehension of an offender, it is more aggravated form and on conviction, the convict may be punished with imprisonment up to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Illustration.- ‘A’, a landholder, knowing of the commission of a murder within the limits of his estate, willfully misinforms the Magistrate of the district that the death has occurred by accident in consequence of the bite of a snake. ‘A’ is guilty of the offence defined in this section.

(d) Refusing oath or affirmation when duly required.- Section 178 says that whoever refuses to bind himself by an oath or  affirmation  to  state  the truth,  when  required  so to bind himself by a public servant legally competent to require that he shall so bind himself is an offence.

(e) Refusing to answer public servant authorized to question.- According to section 179 whoever, being legally bound to state the truth on any subject to any public servant, refuses to answer any question demanded of him touching that subject by such public servant in the exercise of the legal powers of such public servant, shall be punished with simple imprisonment up to six months, or with fine up Rs. 1000, or with both. 

(f) Refusing to sign statement.- Section 180 says that whoever refuses to sign any statement made by him, when required to sign that statement by a public servant legally competent to require that he shall sign that statement, shall be punished with simple imprisonment up to three months, or with fine up to Rs. 500, or with both.

(g) Omission to assist public servant when bound by law to give assistance.- According to section 187, whoever, being bound by law to render or furnish assistance to any public servant in the execution of his public duty, intentionally omits to give such assistance, shall be punished with simple imprisonment up to one month, or with fine up to Rs. 200, or with both;

 And if such assistance be demanded to him by a public servant legally competent to make such demand for the purposes of executing any process lawfully issued by a Court of Justice, or of preventing the commission of an offence, or of suppressing a riot, or affray, or of apprehending a person charged with or guilty of an offence, or of having escaped from lawful custody, shall be punished with simple imprisonment up to six months, or with fine up to Rs. 500, or with both.

(3) OFFENCES BY FALSE STATEMENT

(3.1) FALSE STATEMENT ON OATH OR AFFIRMATION TO PUBLIC SERVANT

Section 181 says that whoever, –

(i) being legally bound by an oath or affirmation to state the truth on any subject,

(ii) to any public servant or other person authorized by law to administer such oath or affirmation,

(iii) makes, any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true,

shall be punished with imprisonment up to three years and fine.

(3.2) FALSE INFORMATION, WITH INTENT TO MISUSE POWER OF PUBLIC SERVANT TO CAUSE INJURY

Section 182 says that whoever gives to any public servant any information which he knows or believes to be false, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that the will thereby cause, such public servant—

(a)     To do or omit anything which such public servant ought not to do or omit if the true state of facts respecting which such information is given were known by him, or

(b)     To use the lawful power of such public servant to the injury or annoyance of any person,

shall be punished with imprisonment up to six month, or with fine up to Rs. 1000, or with both.

Illustration.- A informs a Magistrate that Z, a police-officer, subordinate to such Magistrate, has been guilty of neglect of duty or misconduct, knowing such information to be false, and knowing it to be likely that the information will cause the Magistrate to dismiss Z. A has committed the offence defined in this section.

(4) OFFENCES BY RESISTANCE  AND OBSTRUCTION

(4.1) RESISTANCE AND OBSTRUCTION IN RELATED TO PROPERTY

(a) Resistance to the taking of property by the lawful authority.- Section 183 says that whoever offers any resistance to the taking of any property by the lawful authority of any public servant, knowing or having reason to believe that he is such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

(b) Obstructing sale of property offered for sale by authority of public servant.- Section 184 says that whoever intentionally obstructs any sale of property offered for sale by the lawful authority of any public servant as such, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

(c) Illegal purchase or bid for property offered for sale by authority of public servant.-Section 185 says that whoever, at any sale of property held by the lawful authority of a public servant, as such, purchases or bids for any property on account of any person, whether himself or any other, whom he knows to be under a legal incapacity to purchase that property at that sale, or bids for such property not intending to perform the obligations under which he lays himself by such bidding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both.

(4.2) OBSTRUCTING PUBLIC SERVANT IN DISCHARGE OF PUBLIC FUNCTIONS

Section 186 says that whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

(4.3) DISOBEDIENCE TO ORDER DULY PROMULGATED BY PUBLIC SERVANT

According to section 188, whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction,

 Shall, if such disobedience causes to tender to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance of injury, to any persons lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both;

And if such disobedience causes or trends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

It is not necessary that the offender should intend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience as likely to produce harm. It is sufficient that he knows of the order which he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or is likely to produce, harm.

Illustration.- An order is promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, directing that a religious procession shall not pass down a certain street. A knowingly disobeys the order, and thereby causes danger of riot. A has committed the offence defined in this section.

(4.4) COGNIZANCE OF OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 195 OF CR.P.C.

Section 195(a)(i) Cr.P.C., bars the court from taking cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 188 IPC or abetment or attempt to commit the same, unless, there is a written complaint by the public servant concerned for contempt of his lawful order.

The object of this provision is to provide for a particular procedure in a case of contempt of the lawful authority of the public servant. The legislative intent behind such a provision has been that an individual should not face criminal prosecution instituted upon insufficient grounds by persons actuated by malice, ill-will or frivolity of disposition and to save the time of the criminal courts being wasted by endless prosecutions.

The Supreme Court held that that the provisions of this Section cannot be evaded by describing the offence as one being punishable under some other sections of IPC, though in truth and substance, the offence falls in a category mentioned in Section 195 Cr.P.C. Thus, cognizance of such an offence cannot be taken by mis-describing it or by putting a wrong label on it.[3]

The provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C are mandatory and no court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of any of the offences mentioned therein unless there is a complaint in writing as required under that section. There must be a complaint by the public servant whose lawful order has not been complied with. The complaint must be in writing. The provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C are mandatory. Non-compliance of it would vitiate the prosecution and all other consequential orders. The Court cannot assume the cognizance of the case without such complaint. In the absence of such a complaint, the trial and conviction will be void ab initio being without jurisdiction.[4]

(5)   THREAT OF INJURY TO PUBLIC SERVANT

Offences under sections 189 and 190 of this chapter are different and do not required procedure to for cognizance to be followed under section 195 of Cr.P.C. Both offences are as follows –

(5.1) THREAT OF INJURY TO PUBLIC SERVANT

Section 189 says that whoever holds out any threat of injury to any public servant, or to any person in whom he believes that public servant to be interested, for the purpose of inducing that public servant to do any act, or to forbear or delay to do any act, connected with the exercise of the public functions of such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment up to two years, or with fine, or with both.

(5.2) THREAT OF INJURY TO INDUCE PERSON TO REFRAIN FROM APPLYING FOR PROTECTION TO PUBLIC SERVANT

Section 190 says that whoever holds out any threat of injury to any person for the purpose of inducing that person to refrain or desist from making a legal application for protection against any injury to any public servant legally empowered as such to give such protection, or to cause such protection to be given, shall be punished with imprisonment up to one year, or with fine, or with both.

 (6) SUMMARY OF OFFENCES

* * * * *

[1]    State of UP v.  Mata Bhikh, 1994 (4) SCC 95.

[2]    Nyaya Panchayat Palog v. Ghanu Ram, AIR 1964 HP 2 : 1964 CriLJ 34.

[3]    Basir-ul-Haq v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1953 SC 293 and Durgacharan Naik v. State of Orissa, AIR 1966 SC 1775.

[4]    C. Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu,  AIR 2010 SC 3718 : (2010) 9 SCC 567; See also Daulat Ram v. State of Punjab, AIR 1962 SC 1206; M.S. Ahlawat v. State of Haryana, AIR 2000 SC 168