C K RAGHAVAN Vs. BHASKARAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these two criminal references under S.438 Cr. P. C., by the Sessions Judge, Tellicherry, the question that falls to be decided is as to the limitation to be imposed on sanction under S.197 Cr. P. C., when a public servant is accused of an offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. Since a common question of law is involved, they are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) One Balakrishnan, a taxi driver and one Raghavan, an auto rikshaw driver, filed C. C. 15/68 and C. C. 16/68 respectively in the Additional First Class Magistrate's Court, Tellicherry on 28-2-68 against the 1st accused, Inspector of Police and the 2nd accused, Head Constable, attached to the Tellicherry Police Station making the following allegations against them. While Balakrishnan and Raghavan, who hereinafter will be referred to as the complainants were standing at the Bus Stand at about 10 p.m. on 21-2-68, the 2nd accused carried them away in a Police van after causing voluntary hurt to them. But, when they were produced before the 1st accused at the Police Station, the 1st accused also caused hurt to them by fisting on their head, back and stomach and threatened them also with death if they refused to sign some papers. The 2nd accused was also alleged to have caused voluntary hurt to them by kicking them on their back with legs. Thereafter, both the complainants were kept in the lock up and on the next day at 8 p. m. they were produced before the Executive First Class Magistrate and later they were released on bail. But, afterwards, they filed petitions to the Executive First Class Magistrate and others. But, no action was taken. Hence they filed the above complaints against accused 1 and 2.

(3.) The Additional First Class Magistrate on taking cognizance of the offence under S.200 Cr. R. C., summoned the accused 1 and 2 to answer the charges. Thereafter, on behalf of the complainants, 4 witnesses were examined as Pws. 1 to 4 including the complainants on the basis of the allegations made and relying upon that evidence, accused 1 and 2 were questioned under S.342 Cr. P. C., in each of the aforesaid cases. But, the learned First Class Magistrate held on hearing both sides that S.197 Cr. P. C., is a bar to the prosecution against the 1st accused and in the absence of the sanction by the State, the complaint against the 1st accused could not be proceeded against. Accordingly, the prosecution against the 1st accused was dropped while the court ordered the prosecution against the 2nd accused to be proceeded with.