BAJRANG PARAB Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.Pradhan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Petitioner is the police officer. Respondent No.2 was an accused in a case and as such was in custody of the petitioner. Respondent No.2 thereafter made a complaint to the Magistrate that the petitioner had assaulted him while in custody with belt and stick. The Magistrate referred Respondent No.2 for medical examination to examine him and the Magistrate found that there were injuries on the person Respondent No.2. In this background thereafter the Metropolitan Magistrate, 28th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai issued process against the petitioner by an order dated 4th January 2003 and also against one constable Mr.Rane, who is not the petitioner in this matter, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 506, r/w 34 of the IPC.

(2.) The petitioner challenged this order by filing a Revision before the Sessions Court and, the Sessions Court by an order dated 3rd July 2004 dismissed the revision. It is this order that is challenged by the petitioner in the present petition.

(3.) When questioned, Mr.Pradhan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that no prosecution can be launched against the petitioner unless previous sanction is obtained as prescribed by Section 196 of the Cr.P.C. He placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 432 [Rakesh Kumar Mishra v. State of Bihar and ors. The learned counsel Mr.Pradhan for the petitioner drew my attention, in particular to the following portion of para 6 of that judgment :-