NANDU ZAMBAULIKER Vs. SHRIKANT NAIK & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, the applicant has challenged the Order dated 21st March, 1998 passed by the Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao, in Criminal Revision Application No. 41 of 1997 setting aside the Order dated 8th July, 1997 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Margao, in Criminal Case No. 134/P/87/I. The learned Magistrate rejected the application of respondent No. 1 for dismissing the com­plaint on the ground of want of sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Proce­dure Code. In revision, the learned Ses­sions Judge set aside that Order holding that sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code was necessary for prosecuting respondent No.1. The relevant facts necessary for the decision of this application may be stated in brief as under:

(2.) THE applicant, who is a press photographer, is the original complainant whereas the respondent No. 1, who is a Head Constable, is the original accused in Criminal Case No. 134/P/87/I. The said case was initiated against respondent No. 1 on the basis of a private complaint dated 21st March, 1987 filed by the applicant. It was alleged by the applicant that on 20th December, 1986 some people had gathered near Gandhi Market at Margao to make an agitation. A police party in­cluding respondent No. I was posted at Gandhi Market for the purpose of ban-dobust. According to the applicant, the agitation was going on peacefully and that, being a press photographer attached to a local daily, he had gone there to take the photographs of the agitators. The ap­plicant further alleged in his complaint that some anti-social elements tried to disrupt the agitation which was going on peacefully and at that time he tried to snap some shots by means of the cameras, which he was carrying with him. He alleged that at that time respondent No. 1 rushed towards him and snatched the camera. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 pulled out the film from it and forcibly threw the camera on the ground and trampled on it. According to the applicant, his camera was of the value of more than Rs. 1.800/- and respondent No. 1 was responsible for caus­ing destruction thereof. The applicant lodged a complaint with the Margao Police Station but the police did not take any action. Hence, the applicant filed his private complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Margao.

(3.) SHRI Jayant Prabhu, the learned advocate for the applicant, submitted that the official duty of respondent No. 1 was to maintain peace and order and to prevent the agitators from luring unruly. Shri Prabhu further submitted that the act of respondent No. 1 of snatching the applicant's camera and beating him was not at all connected with his official duty. Accordingto him, it was an intentional and not an accidental act. Shri Prabhu further urged that as a press photographer, the applicant was entitled to take photographs of the agitators and publish them in the newspaper. Shri S.G. Bhobe, the learned advocate for respondent No. 1, on the other hand, submitted that the acts at­tributed to respondent No. 1 has a correla­tion with his official duty. He pointed out that respondent No. 1 was a member of the police party which was posted for ban-dobust duty and as such he was discharging his duties to maintain law and order. Shri Bhobe further submitted that the question involved is not whether respondent No. 1 committed the alleged offence but whether sanction is required to prosecute him on that count. Shri Lawande, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, supported the impugned Order and sub­mitted that at the relevant time respondent No. 1 was acting under the colour of his office. Therefore, according to him, sanction for prosecution was necessary.