GNANAMANICKAM Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE revision petitions arise out of the orders passed by the District Magistrate,Tellicherry in two criminal cases C.C.63/64 and C.C.64/64 which are pending before him.In both the cases the petitioner who is an Inspector of Police is being tried along with others for assaulting and wrongfully confining the complainants.Since a common question of law is involved,they are dis­posed of by this common judgment. In Calendar case 63/64 the complaint was that the petitioner along with the Sub -Inspector of Police went over the complainant's house,made a search of his house,abused him and the inmates of his house,removed him to the police station and after putting him in the lock up fisted and kicked him and when bail was offered it was refused and he was wrongfully confined in the lock up.It is seen from the objection petition that the complainant is an accused in crime No.54/64 of Panur Police Station who was said to have been absconding and on getting information that he was in his house the Circle Inspector of Police and party went to the house,the Sub -Inspector of Police arrested and removed him to the police station end nothing else had taken place. In Calendar case 64/64 the case was that when the complainant was sitting on the veranda of his house the petitioner along with others went there,made enquiries of his son and finding that his son was not there abused and beat him,got inside the house and opening a wooden box took away Rs.40.In the objection petition filed by the Inspector the allegations in the complaint were denied and it was stated that the complainant's son is an accused in crime No.54/64 of the Panur Police Station and that night they went over to the house to ascertain whether the son was there and when they found that he was not there they advised the complainant to produce the son and came away.Allegations of assault and theft of money were denied.

(2.) IN both the cases preliminary objection is raised before the District Magistrate that the petitioner being a public servant removable from office by the State Govern­ment prosecution for offences alleged to have been com­mitted by him cannot be taken cognisance of except with the previous sanction of the State Government.It has been conceded in the court below that the petitioner being an Inspector of Police is removable from office only by the State Government.Learned District Magistrate held that on the allegations in the complaint,which alone need be taken note of at the time cognisance is taken it cannot be said that,the provisions contained in section 197 Cr.P.C.is attracted and the complaint against the petitioner cannot be thrown out at that stage for want of sanction.The correctness of the decision is challenged in these petitions.

(3.) IT is clear that when a complaint is made to a criminal court against any public servant who is removable only by the State Government and allegations are made that the police officer had acted or purported to act in the discharge of his official duty and in so doing committed some offence complained of,the court will not entertain the complaint unless it appears that the State Government had sanction­ed the prosecution of the officer.If on the other hand,the allegations in the complaint do not indicate such facts, the court can have no ground for looking to the sanction of the Government and in the absence of such a sanction for refusing to entertain the complaint.In such cases it must proceed with the complaint in the same manner as it would have done in connection with complaints against any other person. I might,in this connection,refer to the observation of Jackson,J .,in Raja Rao v. Ramaswami A.I.R.1927 Madras 566 :