at a public sale. Act X, 1859, prohibits Civil Court Ameens or other officers to buy any property sold by them under the said Act. [Cog Bailable.] [Warrant.) lic servant. [Any Mag.] *170. Whoever pretends to hold any particular office as Personating a pub. a public servant (21), knowing that he does not hold such office, or falsely personates any other person holding such office, and in such assumed character does or attempts to do any act under colour of such office, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description (53) for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. Particular office as a public servant.-For conviction under this Section 170, both the office and the person personated must exist.—Vide Reg. vs. Brown, 2 East, P. C., 1007; Reg. vs. Tannet. The offence would, it appears, be the same though the person personated was dead at the time the offence was committed. Reg. vs. Martin. A person pretending to be a Police Officer reprimanded some villagers with reference to the state of their roads, and obtained from them certain sums. He was convicted under this section. The conviction was upheld. Queen vs. Saddannun Dass. False personation of soldier or seaman, so as fraudulently to receive their pay, is penal. But the evidence must show that there was some person of the name and character assumed, who was entitled to the wages attempted to be acquired. Reg. vs. Brown, (Roscoe, p. 430). [Any Mag.] fraudulent intent. [Cog. Bailable.] [Summons.) *171. Whoever, not belonging to a certain class of Wearing garb or public servants, wears any garb or carries carrying token used by public servant with any token resembling any garb or token used by that class of public servants (21) with the intention that it may be believed, or with the knowledge that it is likely to be believed, that he belongs to that class of public servants, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description (53) for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to two hundred Rupees, or with both. Vide Section 140, P. C. A similar offence is punished by that section with imprisonment of either description for three months, and with fine extending to five hundred Rupees, or with both. Sec. 172.. INDIAN PENAL CODE. 133 CHAPTER X. OF CONTEMPTS OF THE LAWFUL AUTHORITY OF PUBLIC SERVANTS. By the provisions of this chapter, local authorities are empowered to forbid acts which they consider as dangerous to the public peace, health, safety, or convenience, and disobedience of such order is an offence; but before the disobedience of any such order can be looked upon as an offence, the Court before which the party disobeying the order is tried, must be satisfied that the offender is guilty of having done something tending to cause obstruction, annoyance, or injury to any person lawfully employed. Section 188 in this Chapter provides a penalty for the infraction of an order promulgated by a Magistrate under Section 62, Act XXV of 1861. Referring to the former section, the Law Commissioners observe: "On the one hand, it is absolutely necessary to have some local rules which shall not require the sanction of the Legislature; on the other, there is great reason to apprehend much petty tyranny and vexation from such rules ***. We have therefore thought it necessary to provide that no person should be punished merely for disobeying a local order, unless it be made to appear that the disobedience has been attended with evil or risk of evil." Section 5, Act. VI. of 1864, provides for the whipping of juvenile (Section 83, P. C.) offenders convicted of offences specified in the sections marked in this chapter. Juveniles may be punished with whipping only in lieu of any other punishment; but whipping may be inflicted for first or any other offence, and is to be administered in the way of school discipline with a light rattan. (Para. 6, Circular No. 2, dated 8th April, 1864). No female, nor any person sentenced to death, or transportation, or penal servitude or imprisonment for more than five years, shall be whipped. Section 7, Act VI of 1864. (Uncog. Bailable: [Summons.] [Any Mag.] *172. Whoever absconds in order to avoid being served Absconding to avoid with a summons, notice, or order proceedservice of summons or ing from any public servant (21) legally competent, as such public servant, to issue such summons, notice, or order, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may other proceeding from a public servant. 134 INDIAN PENAL CODE. Secs. 172-173. extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred Rupees, or with both; or if the summons, notice, or order is to attend in person or by agent, or to produce [Any Mag.] [Uncog. Bailable.] Summons.) a document (29) in a Court of Justice (20), with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand Rupees, or with both. This section applies to a witness who absconds to evade service of warrant issued under Sections 188 to 190, Act XXV of 1861, while Section 183, Act XXV of 1861, applies to a party who absconds. (9 W. R., p. 70. Queen vs. Hossein Manjee). In April, 1866, the Madras High Court ruled that a warrant was not to be served, but executed; and so a person absconding to prevent the execution did not come under this section. A party absconding to avoid service of warrant cannot be convicted for such offence under this section. Such a case must be dealt with under Sections 183, 184, Act XXV of 1861. Queen vs. Omesh Chundor Ghose, 18th April, 1866, p. 16, vol. I, C. C. R. From the wording of this section it appears that a person absconding on hearing that a summons against him was to be applied for, would not be guilty of an offence under this section; some action of a judicial nature is evidently requisite before the comtempt contained in this section. can be committed. A warrant addressed to a Police Officer to apprehend an offender and bring him before the Court "is not a summons, notice, or order" within the meaning of this section. See note 2 ante, in re Queen vs. Omesh Chunder Ghose. [M. of 1st Class or 2nd Class.] * Preventing service of summons or other proceeding, or pre venting publication thereof. [Uncog. Bailable.] [Summons.] 173. Whoever in any manner intentionally prevents the serving on himself, or on any other person, of any summons, notice, or order proceeding from any public servant legally competent, as such public servant (21), to issue such summons, notice, or order, or intentionally prevents the lawful affixing to any place of any such summons, notice, or order, or intentionally removes any such summons, notice or order from any place to which it is lawfully affixed, or intentionally prevents the lawful Secs. 173-174 INDIAN PENAL CODE. 135 making of any proclamation, under the authority of any public servant legally competent, as such public servant, to direct such proclamation to be made, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred [Uncog. Bailable.] [Summons. [M. of 1st Class or 2nd Class. Rupees, or with both; or, if the summons, notice, order, or proclamation is to attend in person or by agent, or to produce a document (29) in a Court of Justice (20), with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand Rupees, or with both. Intentionally prevents the serving on himself.-Refusing to sign a summons by an accused person does not constitute the offence of intentionally preventing the service of a summons on himself under this section. Reg. vs. Kályá, Bo. H. Ct. R., Crown cases, p. 34 of 1868. Intentionally pervents the unlawful affixing &c.-By the wording of this section a person can apparently be punished for disallowing a public servant duly authorized from affixing a summons at the offender's doorpost, if it is thereby intended to obstruct public justice. [Uncog. Bailable.] Summons.) [Any Mag.] *174. Whoever, being legally bound (43) to attend in Non-attendance in person or by agent at a certain place and obedience to an order time, in obedience to a summons, notice, from a public servant. order, or proclamation proceeding from any public servant legally competent, as such public servant (21), to issue the same intentionally omits to attend at that place or time, or departs from the place where he is bound to attend before the time at which it is lawful for him to depart, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which [Any Mag.] [Uncog. Bailable.] [Summons.] may extend to five hundred Rupees, or with both; or if the summons, notice, order, or proclamation is to attend in person or by agent in a Court of Justice (20), with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand Rupees, or with both. Or Departs from the Place.-A fine can be imposed on a man, under this section, who, when summoned to answer a charge and verbally ordered to remain, disobeys that order. M. H. C. R., No. 779, VI, M. J. 382. Summons, Notice, Order, or Proclamation.-Accused were appointed arbitrators in a civil suit. They were summoned to attend the Court on a certain date, but disobeyed the summons. Held that the accused could not be convicted under this Section (174), as the summons in question was a process not provided for by law. (6 P. R. 1), R. vs. Kashi Ram. Or proclamation.-Madras Jurist, Vol III, No. II, p. 431. Disobedence to a proclamation would be punishable under this section (R. C. C. R., Cir. 61). A Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence under Section 174 committed against his own Court. 8 W. R., p. 61. Queen vs. Gurgun Misser. Any public servant legally competent.-A Chairman of Municipal Commissioners appointed under Act XXVI of 1850, although a public servant, is not legally competent as such to issue an order for attendance before him. Accordingly disobedience of such an order is not an offence under this section. Reg. vs. Purshotam Valji, Bo. H. Ct. R., Crown cases, p. 33, of 1868. Section 1, Act XXVI of 1850 was repealed by Section 1, Act XIV of 1870, and Schedule Part II thereto attached. A Mahalkari, invested with the powers of a 2nd Class Subordinate Magistrate, cannot issue a summons, under Section 8 of Act XI of 1843, nor can a person be convicted under Section 174 for having disobeyed such a summons so issued. R. V. Venka'ji Bha'skur, 8 Bo. H. C.R. 19. To attend in Person in a Court of Justice.-This section does not apply to the case of a defendant escaping from custody under a warrant in execution of a decree of Civil Court. Reg. vs. Suda Pattro (1 Bo. H. Ct. R., 38). But the Punjaub Chief Court have ruled differently, in re R. V. Heera Sing, it was held that this section applied to an escape from custody under a warrant in execution of the decree of a Civil Court. This view is supported by the H. Ct., Calcutta, 2 Bengal Law Rep., 21, F. B. Rulings. (6 P. R., 1). In consequence of the default of appearance of the person bailed, the surety was compelled to pay the penalty mentioned in the recognizance. The Deputy Magistrate applied for and received the permission of the District Magistrate to try the accused under this section. Held that the Deputy Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the case, it not having been |