SAROJINI Vs. PRASANNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revisions have come before us on reference made by the learned Judge, who has observed that the question raised is of considerable importance and that two learned Judges of this Court have taken seemingly conflicting views, which require to be resolved. On the complaints of the petitioners, two casesasC.C.Nos.327and345of 1985 of the Judicial FirstClassMagistrateCourt, Manantoddy,were registered against the common respondents against whom cognizance was taken for an offence punishable under S.323 read with 34, IPC, in respect of an incident that happened in the house and premises of the complainants - who are mother and son - on 25-10-1985 at about 8.30 A.M., They and their witnesses gave evidence about the incident and the accused when questioned under S. 313 Cr.P.C. stated that they went to the house to arrest Veeran, the complaintant in C.C No. 345 of 1985 - the accused in Crime No.320 of 1985 of Manantoddy Police Station-and since there was obstruction to arrest him, and he made an attempt to escape from custody, they had to use force to effect his arrest. They denied the incident as alleged and maintained that they had only sought to discharge their duty as public servants within the bounds of law. They examined two witnesses and also marked documents in defence. At the hearing a contention was advanced that the prosecution is bad for want of sanction under S. 197 Cr.P.C., which was repelled by two separate orders dated 7-9-1991, which were challenged in Crl.R.P.Nos. 18 and 19 of 1991 before the Sessions Court, Wayanad, and were set aside against which the present revisions have been filed.

(2.) Heard.

(3.) At the relevant time the respondents/accused were the Sub Inspector and two constables of Manantoddy Police Station, who have contended that their prosecution by the petitioners is bad for want of sanction under S. 197 Cr.P.C. The object of the section is indeed to prevent vexatious proceedings against public servants. It is in public interest that they are not dragged to Court by unscrupulous persons on unfounded allegations to harass and intimidate them for acts done in the discharge of functions as public servants. But then, before sub-s. (1) of S. 197 Cr.P.C. can be invoked, the conditions stipulated there will have to be satisfied. Non-compliance of any one of the conditions, viz., that the person accused is or was a public servant removable from his office only with the sanction of the State Government or of the General Government according to whether he is employed in connection with the affairs of the State or the Central Government and that he must have been accused of an offence alleged to have been committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties. The benefit of this provision cannot be claimed by the accused, who, as stated already, are the Sub Inspector and Constables belonging to the Kerala Subordinate Police Service. Tine power to dismiss or remove them from service has been conferred under the relevant provisions in the Kerala Police Act and Rules upon the I.G., D.I.G., A.I.G. and S.Ps. In other words, they are not public servants no removable from office, save with the previous sanction of the State Government. The benefit of sub clause (b) of S. 197 (1) could not be claimed by them. (See in this Connection 1983 KLT 349.