LAWS(SC)-1998-5-61

STATE OF BIHAR Vs. KAMLA PRASAD SINGH

Decided On May 06, 1998
STATE OF BIHAR Appellant
V/S
KAMLA PRASAD SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Patna High Court in Criminal Revision No. 799/1982.

(2.) Respondent No. 1, Kamla Prasad Singh has filed a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna alleging that on 30-3-1982 a Police party headed by Respondent No. 2 raided his house without obtaining any warrant of search and while carrying out the search respondents Nos. 2 to 4 assaulted his wife, abused her and other persons present in the house and took away certain articles belonging to him. Thus respondents Nos. 2 to 4 have committed offences punishable under Sections 451, 452, 453, 456, 457, 458, 380, 334, 426 and 120-B, I.P.C.

(3.) The learned Magistrate after recording the statement of the complainant felt some doubt about the correctness of his version and, therefore, decided to hold an inquiry under Section 202, Criminal Procedure Code. During the inquiry the complainant, his wife and his two brothers-in-law who were stated to be present at the time of incident, were examined. The complainant refused to examine Shri J.C. Das, Executive Magistrate who was also present when the raid was carried out. After considering the evidence thus gathered, the learned Magistrate held that there is no evidence to show that there was an assault on his wife or that respondents 2 to 4 had misbehaved with her or any other person in the house. The learned Magistrate also found that the raid was carried out by the 3 police officers under supervision of Shri J.C. Das, the Executive Magistrate. He also found that search and seizure lists were prepared and copies thereof were given to Nagendra Kumar, brother-in-law of the complainant who was present at the time of the raid. It appeared to the learned Magistrate that the acts alleged to have been committed by respondents 2 to 4 were done under the colour of their office and while discharging their official duty. He, therefore, held that no cognizance of any of the offences could be taken against them in absence of the required sanction under Section 197 of the Code.