GYANOBA Vs. NANAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Gyanoba filed a private complaint, obviously under Sec.200, CrPC(1898), against Sri Naniah, S.I. of Police, Police Station House, Bidar Town, alleging offences against him under Ss.330 & 504 IPC. After recording the sworn statement of the complainant the case was taken on file as Crl Case 521/3 of 1973 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidar Process was next issued to the accused under S.204 CrPC. The accused appeared in person and also by Counsel.

(2.) The learned Magistrate heard the arguments on both sides and ultimately held that in view of the bar of S.170 of the Mysore (Karnataka) Police Act, 1963, the complaint stands dismissed, as no sanction had been obtained from the Govt to lodge the prosecution. It is against this order that the complainant has come up in this Criminal Revision Petition It is necessary in order to understand the back-ground, to set out the recitals in the complaint, fairly in extenso. It is alleged that the complainant (petitioner) while coming from the house of the PWD Supervisor, one Bhima Rao, described as an unsocial element, caught hold of him near the Town Police Stn, Bidar, on 24-5-73 at about 8 a.m. Bhima Rao began to demand, without any reason, gold & money from the complainant The complainant denied that he had taken any gold and money from Bhima Rao meanwhile, two constables came and the complainant was taken to the Police Station. The S I. of Police there, namely the accused (respondent here), began to assault the complainant with a stick for the purposes of extorting from the complainant a confession that ha had taken money and gold from Bhima Rao. The accused assaulted the complainant with his hands also and tortured him in the Police Station, resulting in several injuries on his person. He (complainant) went to the Civil Hospital. Bidar. and obtained a medical certificate. It is attached to the complaint. It is further alleged that the accused abused the complainant by taking the names of his wife and mother.

(3.) The learned Magistrate has referred to some decisions of this Court, and also to a ruling of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Atmaram, AIR. 1966 SC. 1786. He does not appear to have properly applied his mind to the 'Ratio' of the Supreme Court ruling, above referred to, and which has been followed by this Court in Govindaraju v. Babu Poojary, 1973 (1) MysLJ. 94. In Govindaraju's case (2), the previous decisions of this Court viz., State of Mysore v. Manikyam, 1968 (2) MysLJ. 11, and State of Mysore v. Satyendra Kumar, 1972 (1) MysLJ. 637, and also one unreported decision in Kalyanaprasad v. Radhakrishna, CrRP.257/69, have been referred to.