S K ZUTSHI Vs. BIMAL DEBNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants call in question legality of the judgment rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Belonia, South Tripura in Criminal Revision No. 29(4) of 1997. Appellants had challenged legality of the cognizance taken and issuance of process on the basis of a complaint filed by respondent No.1. The complaint was filed by respondent No.1 alleging that on 21-3-1997 the present appellants along with some other personnel of Border Security Force (in short BSF) came to his crockery-cum-cloth shop and demanded Rs.10,000/- as illegal gratification which the complainant refused to pay. They entered into his shop without any authority, ransacked the shop and illegally took away some commodities which were stored for business purposes. Certain documents were also taken away. It was further alleged that they threatened him to take away his life and with dire consequences on the point of revolver. They illegally took away the articles on the basis of a purported seizure memo taking signature of some persons forcibly. Allegations were also made about the illegal activities of BSF personnel and as to how the people in the locality were subjected to reign of terror by them. It was in essence alleged that the accused persons committed offences punishable under Sections 395, 447 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC). Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Belonia, took cognizance of the offences and issued process to the present appellants. The order taking cognizance and the continuance of the proceedings were questioned by the appellants before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Belonia by filing an application under Section 397 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code). The only point which was urged was that the appellants were, on the basis of a notification issued in June, 1986, authorized to function under Sections 100-104, 106, 107, 109 and 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 (in short the Customs Act). As the appellants suspected that the complainant had stored articles in his shop for the purposeof smuggling to Bangladesh, seizure was made. There was no demand of gratification as alleged. The acts done were clearly within the permissible area of statutory duties and they were entitled to get the protection under Section 197 of the Code.

(2.) The stand was resisted by the respondent-complainant on the ground that the acts complained of had not even any remote link with any official acts and duties and, therefore, Section 197 of the Code has no application. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Belonia, accepted the stand of the complainant and held that Section 197 of the Code had no application to the facts of the case.

(3.) In support of the appeal learned counsel submitted that the factual scenario clearly shows that the acts done by the appellants were sanctioned by law. Under the belief that articles were stored with the object of smuggling, the search and seizure were made. There is no evidence except the vague assertion of the complainant about the alleged demand of any illegal gratification and /or other acts. Taking into account the objective for which Section 197 of the Code has been enacted it is a fit case where the protection provided by the said provision should be extended. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 complainant, however, submitted that the acts alleged do not have any link whatsoever with the officials acts and, therefore, the order taking cognizance and /or directing issuance of process cannot be faulted. The judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Belonia, does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference.