P C BAJPAI Vs. RAHMANULHAQ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only point involved in this criminal revision is as to whether revisionist P. C. Bajpai, who is a Sales Tax Officer could be prosecuted in this case under section 500/504 IPC without government's sanction under section 197 CrPC.

(2.) THERE is no dispute that the applicant is a Sales Tax Officer and that on 4-4-1980 he visited the brick kiln of which Rahmanulhaq, opposite party no. 1, is a partner and conducted the survey. None of the partners was present at the brick kiln at that time and (only some servants and labourers were present. On 7-4-1984 Rahmanulhaq filed a complaint against the said Sales-tax Officer alleging that on arrival at the brick kiln the accused, Sales tax Officer, enquired about the owners and when the servants told him that they were not present, the accused started abusing and when the servants asked him not to abuse, he called abuses for the owners as well, and further threatened that he would see them and will, ruin them in the Sales-tax case. It was further alleged that in this way the accused mis-used his power and committed offence under sections 500 and 504 IPC.

(3.) I may mention at the out set that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge was clearly erroneous and that the allegations made by the complainant clearly show that the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused Sales Tax Officer were committed while he was acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. It is not disputed that the accused had gone to the brick kiln of the complainant for conducting survey and that survey was done by him. The complainant does not disclose the circumstance under which the Sales Tax Officer started abusing the servants and labourers, when they told him that the owners were not present. On the face of it the allegations contained in the complaint appears to be wrong. It may be that while talking to the servants and labourers the accused might have behaved rudely ; all the same he was conducting the survey and talking to the servants and labourers in his official capacity as a Stiles Tax Officer and as such he was acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. The learned Sessions Judge has observed that abusing or threatening was not a part of the official duty of the accused and hence sanction of the government under section 197 CrPC was not necessary. Assuming that the applicant did what he is being accused of having done, it will not make any difference in so far as the bar of section 197 CrPC is concerned. The language of this section clearly Is that no court can take cognizance of an offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant if that offence is committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of bis official duty. It does not matter if the acts were strictly necessary for the discharge of the duty. What has to be found out is whether the act and the; official duty were so inter-related that one could postulate reasonably that it was done by the accused in the performance of the official duty, though possibly in excess of the needs and requirements of the situation. In this view I am fully supported by a decision of this court in the case of Sri Kailash Sethi v. State, 1978 Allahabad Criminal Rulings 163 and also by the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of M. Subbiah v. T. Ramacharlu, AIR 1939 Madras 604. The facts of these cases were similar to those of thee present case. In the first case the complainant who was an Assistant Collector Customs was alleged to have threatened and intimidated the complainant, had illegally detained him at the check Dost for several hours and extorted his statements by putting him in fear of his life. Evidently these acts could not be said to be part of his official duty, yet it was evident that they had been committed while he was acting in the discharge of his official duty. In the second case the accused was president of a Panchayat Court and the complainant objected to the dictation of judgment by the clerk of the court, whereupon it was said that the accused abused the complainant and slapped him on the cheek and on his protest he unlaced his shoe and threatened to beat the complainant with the same. It was held that the accused was acting in his official capacity and could not be prosecuted without sanction of the local government. The law laid down in the above cases fully supports the applicant's contention;