https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461919 An executive order issued under Section 30 of the Indian Police Act, 1861 was held to be only a regulatory measure, not a prohibited act or "law" capable of supporting a charge for resistance under Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code. Refusal to disperse, without proof of lawful execution of the order, did not amount to resistance to execution of law. The charge under Section 145 also failed because it did not disclose the common object of the alleged unlawful assembly, and the evidence did not establish that object or justify conviction under the general penal law where the conduct was governed by the special statute. en-us Thu, 03 Aug 1922 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 May 2025 16:46:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461919 An executive order issued under Section 30 of the Indian Police Act, 1861 was held to be only a regulatory measure, not a prohibited act or "law" capable of supporting a charge for resistance under Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code. Refusal to disperse, without proof of lawful execution of the order, did not amount to resistance to execution of law. The charge under Section 145 also failed because it did not disclose the common object of the alleged unlawful assembly, and the evidence did not establish that object or justify conviction under the general penal law where the conduct was governed by the special statute. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 03 Aug 1922 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461919