SHARANAPPA Vs. GOVINDAREDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Petition under S.397 read with S.401 of CrlPC, 1973 is directed against the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Chincholi made in CC.52J3 of 1975 discharging the respondents under Section 245(2) CrlPC.

(2.) The facts leading up to the petition are these: Respondent-1 was 3 Circle Inspector of Police attached to the Vigilance Cell at Tandur in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Respondent-2 was the driver of his jeep. A transport vehicle belonging to the son of the petitioner when found transporting some bags of food-grains was intercepted by respondent-1. The food-grains were seized and produced before the Dist Revenue Officer, Hyderabad ('DRO') for taking action to confiscate them under S.6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The DRO after notice to the parties including the driver of the vehicle held that the seized grains were transported within the territorial jurisdiction of 'the Andhra Pradesh State and in contravention of the Orders made under the Essential Commodities Act. He accordingly made an order to confiscate the same. The validity of the said order was challenged by the driver of the lorry in an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The learned Sessions Judge egreed with the view taken by the DRO and dismissed the appeal. The matter was then taken before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Crl RP.717 of 1975, which was also dismissed. In the meantime, the petitioner filed a complaint against the respondents stating that the vehicle was engaged in transporting rice within the territory of Karnataka State and the respondents without authority detained the vehicle and committed offences punishable under Ss.379, 383, 386, 387, 341 and 342 read with S.34 of the IPC. The complaint was riled before the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Chincholi. The said complaint was referred to the Circle Inspector of Police, Chincholi, under S. 156(3) of the CrlPC. for investigation and report. After investigation, the Circle Inspector submitted a final report stating that no offence was committed by the respondents. Thereupon the respondents filed an application under S.245(2) of the CrlPC praying for an order of discharge stating that no sanction as required under S.197, CrlPC was obtained by the complainant for prosecuting them. The learned Magistrate dismissed that application by his order dt. 19-6-1975. Aggrieved by that order, respondent-1 preferred CrlRP.210 of 1975 before this Court. This Court allowed the revision petition and set aside the order complained of with a direction to the Magistrate to hear the matter afresh and decide the applicabilty of S.197 of the CrlPC and S.15 of the Essential Commodities Act. Pursuant to that direction the Magistrate again heard the parties and made an order discharging the respondents on the ground among others that the vehicle was intercepted and the food-grains were seized within the territorial jurisdiction of Andhra Pradesh and the seizure was valid, since the food-grains were proved to have been illegally transported in the said vehicle. He also held that the complaint filed by the petitioner was not maintainable, as admittedly no sanction under S.197 of the CrlPC was obtained.

(3.) These findings are challenged before me in this revision petition. Mr.Appa Rao, learned Counsel ior the petitioner submitted that not With standing the finding recorded in the proceedings connected with the order of connscauon or the food-grains, that the offence was committed inside the State of Andhra Pradesh, the right of the petitioner to establish to the contrary in his complaint against the respondents cannot be taken away or deprived oi. He also said mat if the offence was committed within the erritorial jurisdiction of the Karnataka State, then, respondent-1 being not a police officer of this state had no authority to seize the food-grains and, therefore, no sanction under S.197 CrlPC was necessary to prosecute him for the offences complained of.