Legal Provisions of Section 186 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Obstructing public servant in discharge of public function:
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Voluntarily obstructing a public servant in the discharge of his public functions has been made a punishable offence under this section. The section says that voluntary obstruction of any public servant in the discharge of his public functions by anyone shall be punished with simple or rigorous imprisonment extending up to three months, or with fine extending up to five hundred rupees, or with both.
The obstruction under this section has to be voluntary. If it is any other kind of obstruction, the accused cannot be held guilty under this provision. The other requirement is that the obstruction must be in the discharge of the public functions of the public servant. If the functions cannot be called public functions, the section does not apply.
Image Source: dhrm.utah.gov
Obstruction
While the Bombay High Court has held that obstruction under this section presupposes an element of use of force, or show of force, or threat, or an act of prevention, the Allahabad High Court is of the view that it denotes the presence of an overt act in the nature of actual violence or show of violence.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Where a bridge was closed to traffic vide government orders and the accused truck driver entered the bridge and crossed to the other side in violation of the instructions of the traffic duty officer, it was held that this could not be said to be obstructing a public servant in the discharge of his duty.
Public servant
The expression ‘public servant’ has been used in the same sense as given in section 21 of the Code. Where a block animal husbandry officer seized cattle belonging to the accused in certain certificate proceedings and handed over the same to the ‘goraith’ of the village to be carried on to the block office, but he accosted the ‘goraith’ on the way and took away the cattle, it was held that this section did not apply as ‘goraith’ was not a public servant.
Public functions
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The judicial interpretation of the expression ‘public functions’ used in this section seems to be far and varied. An analysis of the various judicial pronouncements may lead to the conclusion that the following fall within the meaning of this expression:
(i) Those functions which are legal and legitimately authorised public functions of a public servant; these do not include any other acts which a public servant may choose to perform.
(ii) Those functions which may not be strictly legal but which must have been done in good faith by the public servant.
(iii) Those functions which are public functions in fact and in law. If such is not the case, even if the intention of the public servant be honest, his acts do not become public functions.
(iv) Those functions where a public servant honestly believes that he is discharging his public functions within the scope of his authority even though he may be mistaken as to the extent of his powers.
(v) Those functions where a public servant acts under official instructions which are not patently illegal.
An act however, does not fall within public functions where the order under which the public servant acts is illegal even though he acts in good faith, or an act which falls wholly outside the jurisdiction and authority of the public servant.
A public servant went to the house of the accused with the purpose of procuring surplus paddy, and asked him as to whether he had permit of the quantity found in his possession. When the accused said no and also refused to surrender the entire quantity, the public servant went inside the house at which moment the accused locked the outer door from outside. The public servant had to remain there till the next morning. It was held that the accused was guilty of wrongful confinement and not for an offence under this section.
The expression ‘obstruction’ in section 186 is not confined to physical obstruction. It need not be an act of use of criminal force. The act need not be a violent one. It is enough if the act complained of results in preventing a public servant in discharge of his lawful duties. Any act of causing impediment by unlawfully preventing a public servant in discharge of his functions would be enough to attract section 186. Any other interpretation would be to encourage people to take the law into their hands, frustrate the investigation of crimes and thwart public justice. Such an interpretation cannot be commended by the courts.
Difference between sections 186 and 353 of the Code
There are three basic differences between sections 186 and 353. Firstly, the former is an offence in the category of contempts of the lawful authority of public servants, whereas the latter is an offence relating to human body. Secondly, the former is a non-cognizable offence, while the latter is a cognizable offence. Thirdly, in the former mere voluntary obstruction of any public servant in the discharge of his public functions is punishable, whereas in the latter assaulting a public servant or using force against him is required to be proved to maintain conviction.
To take cognizance of the offence under this section the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requires vide section 195 that a complaint in writing of the concerned public servant, or of some other public servant to whom this public servant is subordinate, is required.
The offence under this section is non-cognizable, bailable and non-compoundable, and is triable by any magistrate.