Discuss the law as to: Resistance to the taking of property by the lawful authority of a public servant.

Question: Discuss the law as to, resistance to the taking of property by the lawful authority of a public servant.

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [Discuss the law as to, resistance to the taking of property by the lawful authority of a public servant.]

Answer

Section 183, IPC talks about offences committed on resistance to the taking of property by the lawful authority of a public servant.

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.

Scope of Section 183

The section makes punishable the offering of resistance to the seizure of property by the lawful authority of a public servant as it forms an overt act of defiance to his authority. As regards to what constitutes resistance, it has been held that it refers to obstruction and implies something more than mere verbal opposition to the seizure but involves the threat or the imminent threat of use of force against the seizure.

The essential ingredients to prove the offence are as follows:

1. The accused must have offered resistance to the taking of any property;
2. The property was being seized under the authority of a public servant;
3. Such authority must be shown to be lawful;
4. At the time when the accused resisted the seizure, he must be shown to have known or had reason to believe that the public servant had the authority to the taking of the property.

Thus, the public servant seeking to take the property under cover of a warrant must have the warrant with him at that time, or else the effecting of the taking of the property will not be lawful.

Similarly, a warrant for attachment of property that is not signed by the judge or does not bear the seal of the court concerned is not a legal warrant. Resistance or obstruction of such unlawful warrants is not an offence. An objection to the police seizing property does amount to ‘resistance’ under the section

Obstructing sale of property offered for sale by authority of a public servant

Section 184, IPC talks about the offence committed upon Obstructing the sale of property offered for sale by the authority of a public servant.

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.

Illegal purchase or bid for property offered for sale by authority of public servant.

Section 185, IPC talks about offences committed upon illegal purchase or bid for property offered for sale by the authority of a public servant.

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.

Disobedience to order duly promulgated by a public servant.

Section 188, IPC talks about the offence committed upon disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant:

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 or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person 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 tends 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.

Explanation to section 188:

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.

Scope of Section 188

The section prescribes the punishment for disobedience of the lawful orders of a public servant, especially when the disobedience results in any of the consequences outlined in the second and third clauses of the section to the person lawfully employed.

However, in Bharat Raut v State [AIR 1953 Pat 376] it was held that mere disobedience of an order of a public servant is not punishable and that the disobedience must lead to the consequences narrated in the section. Conviction under section 188 cannot be sustained if the alleged disobedience does not cause or is not tended to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed there.

It also needs to be further clarified that the orders must be made by public servants in the public interest and cannot pertain to orders made by such officers in civil proceedings between two parties.

Thus, when one examines s 188, the following essential aspects command attention:

1. There must be an order promulgated by a public servant;
2. The public servant must be lawfully empowered to promulgate such order;
3. The accused must have disobeyed such order;
4. Such disobedience must have caused or tend to have caused: (a) obstruction, injury annoyance or risk to any person lawfully employed; or (b) danger to human life, health or safety; or (c) riot or affray.

It has been held that no conviction under Section 188 can be made unless the likely consequences of the breach of the order are proved positively.

---

Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

1. IPC Mains Questions Series Part I: Important Questions
2. IPC Mains Questions Series Part II: Important Questions
3. IPC Mains Questions Series Part III: Important Questions
4. IPC Mains Questions Series Part IV: Important Questions
5. IPC Mains Questions Series Part V: Important Questions
6. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VI: Important Questions
7. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VII: Important Questions
8. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VIII: Important Questions
9. IPC Mains Questions Series Part IX: Important Questions
10. IPC Mains Questions Series Part X: Important Questions