Dear Niraj, I think you are not an expert on IPC or CrPC. (We do have some real experts in this group, such as my co-Moderator "IndianPublicServant").
You will find though that "every 'jod' has a 'tod'" in the same laws you have cited. The first hurdle being the legal requirement for obtaining sanction to prosecute public servants. The second stumbling block is that usually only the court whose direction is contravened can take cognisance of the offence. (Many of these offences not being cognisable). The third obstacle is that since the police do not register FIRs in these matter and the affected party approaches a Magistrate u/s 190 CrPC the entire burden of proof usually shifts to the 'private' complainant. I note that you have not set out the sections of law exactly, but posted a modified version tailored to suit a thesis. Ours is a "responsible RTI" forum, we do not encourage misleading of our members. For example section 166 actually reads as follows: "Whoever, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will, by such disobedience, cause injury to any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both." not what you posted "166 - Public servant disobeying a direction of the law with intent to cause injury to any person - simple imprisonment for 1 year, or fine, or both." You will not be able to establish *intent* / *mens-rea* which is the essential ingredient of any criminal offence. You should also read definition of injury in IPC "Sec.44: The word "injury" denotes any harm whatever illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation or property." The harm has to be *illegally* caused. FYI we have discussed such matters previously in this group. We are of the consensus that it is not worth pursuing such dubious avenues for relief except in exceptional cases. Sarbajit --- In [email protected], "nirajklko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > PIO BEWARE > > Under section 18(3) of the Right to Information Act 2005 the > Central/ State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall > while inquiring into any matter under this section, have the same > powers as are vested in a Civil Court while trying a suit under CPC, > 1908 (5 of 1908). > In the light of above provision in the RTI Act-2005 the > following sections of Indian Penal Code and Chapter IX, X and XI of > The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 providing punishment also > deserve attention:- > 166 - Public servant disobeying a direction of the law with intent > to cause injury to any person - simple imprisonment for 1 year, or > fine, or both. (Caution for Information Commissioners) > 167 - Public servant framing an incorrect document with intent to > cause injury - Imprisonment for 3 years, or fine or both. The > offence is cognizable as well as non-bailable. (Caution for > Information Commissioners) > 174 Not obeying a legal order to attend at a certain place in > person or by agent or departing therefrom without authority. - > Simple Imprisonment for 1 month. or fine of Rs. 500/- or both. > 186 - Obstructing public servant in discharge of his public > functions - Imprisonment for 3 months, or fine of Rs. 500/-, or both. > 209- False claim in a court of justice - Imprisonment for 2 yrs. and > fine. > 217 - Public servant disobeying a direction of law with intent to > save person from punishment, or property from forfeiture. - > Imprisonment for 2 yrs. or fine or both. (Caution for Information > Commissioners) > 218 - Public servant framing an incorrect record or writing with > intent to save person from punishment, or property from forfeiture - > Imprisonment for 3 yrs. or fine or both. The offence is cognizable. > (Caution for Information Commissioners) > 219 - Public servant in a judicial proceeding corruptly making and > pronouncing an order, report, verdict or decision which he knows to > be contrary to law. - Imprisonment for 7 yrs. or fine or both. > (Caution for Information Commissioners) > 228 - Intentional insult or interruption to a public servant sitting > in any stage of a judicial proceeding -Simple Imprisonment for 6 > months, of fine or Rs. 1,000/- or both. > > If the above is the position in the law of the country, a natural > question arise that what these Hon'ble Information Commissioners are > doing. Are they themselves not clearly flouting the legal provisions > and punishable under Criminal Procedure Code? > > Friends, I wish an open debate on this issue and shall be obliged to > have your esteemed views both through this forum and also if kindly > sent to me in writing on the following address giving your mobile > number and email contact. > > Dr. NIRAJ KUMAR > C 4/8, RIVER BANK COLONY > LUCKNOW - 226018 >
