The document summarizes two court cases related to obstructing government inspectors. In the first case, the Court held that a appellant had the right to obstruct a sanitary inspector's entry as the inspector did not provide prior notice as required by statute. In the second case, the Supreme Court held that a section inspector was acting in good faith even though he did not provide the required notice, as he did not know notice was needed. The appellant in the second case assaulted the inspector, rather than just obstructing entry, so private defense was not available.
The document summarizes two court cases related to obstructing government inspectors. In the first case, the Court held that a appellant had the right to obstruct a sanitary inspector's entry as the inspector did not provide prior notice as required by statute. In the second case, the Supreme Court held that a section inspector was acting in good faith even though he did not provide the required notice, as he did not know notice was needed. The appellant in the second case assaulted the inspector, rather than just obstructing entry, so private defense was not available.
The document summarizes two court cases related to obstructing government inspectors. In the first case, the Court held that a appellant had the right to obstruct a sanitary inspector's entry as the inspector did not provide prior notice as required by statute. In the second case, the Supreme Court held that a section inspector was acting in good faith even though he did not provide the required notice, as he did not know notice was needed. The appellant in the second case assaulted the inspector, rather than just obstructing entry, so private defense was not available.
Even though there was a provision regarding giving of prior notice,
this requirement was not heeded by the inspector. The appellant obstructed the entry of the Sanitary Inspector. The Court held that the appellant had the right to obstruct the entry of the inspector as 'the Sanitary Inspector had not done that which the statute required him to do before he had a right of entry\ Kesho Ram v. Delhi Administration The Section Inspector of the Municipality went to the house of the appellant in the discharge of his duty to seize the appellant's buffalo as he was in arrears of milk tax. The appellant struck the Inspector on the nose causing a fracture. A criminal case was, therefore, filed against the appellant. The appellant's main conten - tion was that the recovery of the tax was illegal inasmuch as no notice of demand as required by the statute was given to him. Negativing this contention, the Supreme Court held that the Inspector was acting in good faith and was honestly exercising his statutory duty and had * sadly* erred in the exercise of his powers. According to the Court, the Inspector 'could not be fairly presumed to know that a notice... .must precede any attempt to seize the buffalo' and therefore, the right of private defence was not available to the appellant. Although it appears that the Bradbury decision was not brought to the notice of the Court, it could have been distinguished on the ground that in that case, the appellant had merely obstructed the entry of the Inspector, whereas in the case before the Supreme Court, the appellant had assaulted the Inspector. Had he merely obstructed the entry of the Section Inspector, prpbably, relying upon the Bradbury decision, he could have justified his action, contending that 'the Section Inspector had not done that which the statute required him to do before he had a right of entry'.