SINGARAVELU Vs. N.T. THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused in C.C.232 of 1986 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kuzhithurai, has file this petition under S. 482 Crl.P.C. to quash the said proceeding.

(2.) THE respondent herein has filed a complaint against the petitioner for an offence under S.379, I.P.C. on the following allegations: - The respondent has been in possession of a boat for 13 years for the purpose of crossing the dam and reaching their rubber garden. In 1984, a new boat was purchased for the use of the workers for Rs. 7,500 and he produced the sale receipt page for purchase of timbers, etc. The licence for the boat has been renewed every year. On the date of occurrence, namely, on 9 -6 -1986 at about 1 p.m., the petitioner -accused along with two known persons and ten rowdies came to the place where the boat was kept under lock and key, broke open the same, committed theft of the said boat and removed the same in a lorry. This was witnessed by two witnesses, Satyanesan and Vijayakumaran Nair. Thereafter, the matter was reported to Arumanai Police station. Hence the complaint. The petitioner has filed this petition to quash the proceedings on the said complaint on the following grounds. According to him, he is working as a junior Engineer, P.W. D., at Chittar Dam II, Sivalokam. Chittar Dam II is a prohibited area and it is under the control of P.W. D. The petitioner's duty is to look after the safety of the dam and the ferry boats carrying passengers and workers across the dam. The P.W. D. has got full power to confiscate the boats which ferry across the dam without licence. According to the petitioner, the respondent suppressed vital facts before court. Since the boat was seized in the exercise of his duty, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted. Further, since the complaint was filed in his individual name while be was discharging his duty as public servant, the court below ought not to have taken cognisance of the complaint. It is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner at the time of hearing that the present prosecution without obtaining sanction from the Government is not maintainable. According to the petitioner, the route permit for the boat is Nette to Sivalokam and for any violation of the route permit, the boat is liable for seizure. Since, the seized boat carries the name 'Ebanezar' there is a violation of the conditions.

(3.) IN B.S. Sambhu v. T.S. Krishnaswami : A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 64, it was held: