LexBACHCHOO LAL versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1963 -'r;/ 25. 358 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1964] VOL. BACHCHOO LAL v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. (K. SuBBA RAo, RAGHUBAR DAYAL and J. R. MUDHOLKAR JJ.) Diatrict Board-Lease to collect Tak B1JZ11ori duea-Obatruc- tion-Oomplaint-"PentJlty for obstructing per1on11 employed by Board"-Scope-United Provincea Di1trict Board A.et, 1n2 (Act X of 1922), s. 107. One Raja Sahib took a lease from the District Board, Allahabad, with respect to the realisation of bayai and bazar dues on the sale of commodities in 'the bazar. The appellant was his employee to collect these dues. A peon of Raja Sahib asked Shyam Lal, P.W. 2, who had sold linseed to Mewa Lal, respondent No. 2, to come to the Munim and pay the beyai dlies. Mewa Lal asked Shyam Lal not to pay those dues. The peon teok ~hyam Lal to the appellant. The respondent No. 2 armed with a lathi, came there and on appellant's asking him as to why he was creating ob•truction in the realisation of the dues, filthily abused him and threatened to kill him. The appellant, there4fter, on obtaining sanction of the District Magistrate, instituted a complaint against Respondent No. 2 for prosecuting him for an offence under •· 107 of the United Provinces District Board Act. The trial Magistrate convicted him of the offences under ss. 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and abo of an offence under s. 107 of the Act. On appeal, Sessions Judge acquitted him of all the charges. Against acquit- tal, the appeilaflt filed an appeal to the High Court which was dismi,.ed. On appeal by certificate, three contentions were raised by the appellant in this Court;. ( i) The order of the Se1- sions Judgc aquitting Mewa Lal was bad as no notice of hearirig of the appeal was i'9ued to the appellant, on whose complaint the Magistrate convicted him, (ii) The High Court was wrong in holding that the Raja could not collect the Tah Bazari dues through his agents, and (iii) that the apP'llant had requisite sanction under s. 182 of tlo.e Act, for prosecuting Mowa Lal, respondent No. 2, Held thats. 107 of the Act does not make obstruction or i;iwlestation of an employee of the person und o cuntracl witji .. 3 S.C,R. SUPRE:ME COURT REPORTS 359 tlac Board, an offence. The section speaks of the obstruction or molestation of two classes of persons. One class consists of persons employed by the District lloard nuder the Act. The Raja or the \ppellant is not an employee of the District Board. The second claoo consists of those persons who are under con- tract with the Board under the Act. Surely, the person under contract with the Board is the Raja and not the appellant. The appellam is only an employee of the Raja. In view of tlocse considerations, the acquittal of the respondent No. 2 could not be interfered with merit<. The appeal, therefore, must be dismissed. The appeal was not heard on merits. If was considered not necessary to decide the first contention and the Court did not express any opinion on the second contention as the term'i of the lease were not known. The third contention was held to be correct. CRIMINAL APPELLATE jURBDICTION : Crimi- nal Appeal No. 126 ofl961. Appeal from the j ndgw•.,1t and order dated May 3, 1961 of the Allahaba nigh Court in Crimi- nal Appeal No. 381 of 1960. 0. P. Rana, for the appellant. The respondent did not appear. 1963. April 25. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAGHUBAR DAYAL J.-Raja Kamlakar Sing;h of Shankargarh, U.P. took a lease from the District Board, Allahabad, with respect to the realisation of bayai and bazaar dues on the sale of commodities in the bazaar of Shankargarh. Bachchoo Lal was his employee t~ c0~llect these dues. On April 13, 1959, Bahadur Smgh, a peon of the Raja Sahib, asked Shyam Lal Kurmi, P.W. 2, who had sold two bullock load of linseed to Mewa Lal, respondent 2, in that 196! BaclrchMJ Lal v. Stall of U. P. R•thubor D•yal J 1963 Bttcl"4o• Lal •• Stal• of U. P. R•gAubar D•Jal J. 360 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964J VOL. bazaar, to accompany him to the Munim in order to pay the bayai dues there. Mewa Lal asked Shyam Lal not to pay those dues. The peon, however, took Shyam Lal to Bachchoo Lal, appellant, at the grain godown. Mewa Lal, armed with a lathi, came there and on Bachchoo Lal's asking him as to why he was creating obstruction in the realisation of the dues, filthily abused him and threatened to break his hand and feet and kill him. Bach
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.