A man, accused of obstructing a commissioner from discharging his duties here in 1998, has been acquitted by a Delhi court due to lack of properly drafted and legally presentable complaint against him.
“This court finds merit in the contention raised by counsel for the accused that he could not be prosecuted for the offence under Section 186 IPC (obstructing public servant from discharging his duty) for want of properly drafted and legally presented complaint,” Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Narinder Kumar said.
The order came on an appeal filed by Shambhu Nath Shukla against the verdict of a magisterial court sentencing him to jail for three months and a fine of Rs 500 after convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 186 of the IPC.
“As a result, appeal is allowed and judgement of conviction and sentence recorded by Metropolitan Magistrate is hereby set aside,” the judge said.
A case was registered against Shukla by the police on May 13, 1998 on a complaint by Commissioner Workman Compensation who was holding his office at the Tis Hazari district courts here.
In the complaint, it was alleged by the commissioner that on May 13 at about 3.35 PM, Shukla had entered into his room in a drunken condition while he was holding his court.
The commissioner alleged that the accused started hurling abuses and started shouting and when the advocates present in the courtroom tried to pacify him, he manhandled them as well after which police was informed and the accused was taken away.
During the adjudication of the case before magisterial court, Shukla had claimed that he was falsely implicated at the instance of the commissioner as he had made several oral complaints to the Labour Commissioner against him.
During the arguments before the sessions court, Shukla’s counsel raised a legal objection saying that his client was prosecuted for the offence under section 186 of the IPC only on the basis of a police chargesheet whereas it should have been on a mandatory complaint filed under Section 195 of CrPC (written complaint by public servant).
The court agreed to the contention of the counsel, saying “Record also does not reveal that Metropolitan Magistrate took cognisance on the basis of a complaint given under section 195 CrPC.”
“The very first order dated May 22, 1999 passed by (the magisterial court) affixing rubber stamp speaks of presentation of challan. It does not speak for presentation of complaint,” the court said.
It also said that in the complaint, the commissioner had nowhere asked for initiation of any legal action against the accused.
“Had the complainant presented complaint directly to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate seeking action against the offender, it would have been in compliance with provisions of Section 195 CrPC. But herein as noticed above, neither the complaint was presented to court nor cognisance was taken of any such complaint,” the court said while acquitting Shukla.