LILABHAI KHODABHAI BHARVAD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner -original complainant by this petition has challenged the impugned judgment and order dt. 30 -11 -'90 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Ahmedabad in Revision Application No. 51/89 filed by the present respondents Nos. 2 to 5 who are original accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Criminal Case No. 41/86 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate whereby the complaint being Cri. Case No. 41/86 filed against the original accused Nos. 1 to 4 present respondents Nos. 2 to 5 is quashed as it was filed without obtaining proper sanction.

(2.) Mr. M. R. Shah L. A. for the petitioner submitted that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge ought not to have exercised his revisional jurisdiction particularly when the evidence is required to be led and appreciated on the point whether the firing made by these S. R. P. accused persons was excessive or improper and without that the complaint against them could not have been quashed only on the ground that no sanction to prosecute is obtained against them.

(3.) It is to be noted that there was a cross case and in fact the S. R. P. persons have received injuries with weapon like Dharia, etc. and they had open fire and because of that 2 persons died and two persons have received injuries in the firing and a complaint is also lodged u/S. 332 I. P. C., and there are statements to the effect that when these S. R. P. -accused persons were assaulted, they had open fire and they were posted at the place of incident to control the situation. When they were on their duty and if people of two groups attack each other and in order to bring the situation under control, if the S. R. P. - accused persons had to fire, then surely their case is covered u/S. 197 Cr. P. C. and sanction of the Government to prosecute them is required and no court can take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction, and therefore, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge after considering various decisions of the Supreme Court and after considering the facts of the present case has rightly come to the conclusion that complaint against the accused Nos. 1 to 4, who are public servants, is not maintainable. I, therefore, do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in a petition which is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, there is no substance and merit in this petition. Hence it fails and is dismissed. Notice discharged.