VAIJNATH PARASHWANATH Vs. BALIRAM SURAJMAL CHOUDHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORIGINAL complaint in Criminal Case Number 33 of 1980 on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ahmedpur, District latur has preferred this Petition to challenge the order passed in Criminal revision Petition No. 116 of 1987, allowing the Revision and setting aside the order dated 3rd July 1987 and application Exhibt 28 and discharging the present Respondent No. 1 who was the accused in Criminal Case by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur.

(2.) BRIFELY stated, facts giving rise to this Petition are as under:-The present Petitioner filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial magistrate First Class, Ahmedpur alleging that the present respondent Number, 1 committed an offence punishable under secs. 161, 384, 385, 448, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. It was alleged in the complaint that on 26th June, 1980, at about 1 p. m. while the complaint was sitting at his house at Kosbt-gaon, the present Respondent Number 1 who was then Police sub-Inspector of Police Station Kingaon came alongwith three police-men and was accompanied by Shriram and Kisanrao mundhe and two others, who were not known to the Petitioner, and the Respondent Number 1 demanded from the petitioner a golden ring, a golden locket and a golden necklace, which he claimed was kept with him by two offenders. The Petitioner informed the Respondent Number 1 that the said articles were not kept with him and he did not know the offenders and he did not know anything about the same and due to that, the Respondent number 1 become annoyed and threatened the petitioner that he should quietly handover the said articles, else, the consequences would be very bad and saying so, he took out his pistol and kept it in front of the petitioner. The petitioner then told the Respondent Number 1 that he was unnecessarily committing attrocities on him and it was sheer injustice ; but respondent Number 1 then threatened and gave abuses and told him further that he would not escape and if he wanted to escape, he should quietly give Rs. 3000/- otherwise he would hand-cuff him and take his procession through the village and would reduce him in the eyes of the people. The Petitioner further stated in the complaint that in the meanwhile, witness No. 1-Phoolchand arrived at the house and then he and the Petitioner told the Respondent No. 1 that they did not have money, but they would pring money from the village and that the Petitioner would not be run down in the eyes of the People. Petitioner further stated in the complaint plaint the Respondent No. 1 then asked them to do so early and meet him in the Gram Panchayet and thereafter, he and the persons accompanying him went towards the Gram Panchayat. Petitioner further claimed in the complaint that thereafter, he collected the amount of Rs. 3000/- from the villagers and then he, alongwith witnesses No. 1 to 3, went to the Gram panchayat and in the presence of said persons and witnesses No. 4 to 13, who were near the Respondent No. 1, amount of Rs. 300/- was paid to the respondent No 1 by witness No. 2, and thereafter, Respondent No. 1 sitting in the Gram Panchayat prepared a nil panchanama of the house of the Petitioner and obtained signatures of witness No, 13 and Kisanrao mundhe on the said Panchanama. On the complaint, it is further stated that Respondent No. 1 gave threat to the Petitioner that he should not tell about the amount being taken to anybody, otherwise he would-be involved on some other charge and would be put in jail. In the complaint it is further stated that due to the said incident, the Petitioner could not move about for two days as he was shocked due to the incident and he could not give a complaint also. However, on 28th June, 1980, he told about the said incident to witness no. 12, and he, alongwith witness No. 12, went to the Police Station to ask about the incident in question to Respondent No. 1, but Respondent No. 1 arrogantly replied and told them that they may do whatever they wanted to do, and thereafter, the Petitioner in presence of witness No. 12 gave a written complaint to District Superintendent of Police, Osmanabad on 30th june, 1980 and he also sent the copies of same to the Superior Officers of the Department. In the complaint, it is also claimed that the District superir tendent of Police then directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who is witness No 14 to enquire into the matter, and accordingly, Deputy superintendent of Police made an enquiry, but no action was taken against the Respondents and as he become sure that no action is likely to be taken in the matter, he was filing the complaint in the Court.

(3.) IT appears that the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ahmedpur sent the said complaint for enquiry to the Police under Section 202 of the criminal Procedure Code. However, no report was received from the police. Therefore, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, issued process under Sections 161, 384, 385, 448, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code thereafter, during the pendency of the case, the Respondent filed an application on 21st May, 1987, which is at Exhibt 28 In the said application, several points were raised by the Respondent and it was contended that no cognizance of the offence could be taken by the Judicial Magistrate first Class, as there was no sanction obtained under Section 197 (2) of the criminal Procedure Code as well as Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption act, and therefore, the prosecution should not be allowed to proceed further and the complaint should be dismissed and accused should be acquitted. It also appears that the question of limitation was also raised and it was contended that as cognizance in the instant case was taken after the period of limitation, as provided under Section 468 of the Criminal procedure Code, the proceedings were barred and reserved to be dropped. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, however, rejected the said application Exhibit 28, holding that the act complained of did not fall within the purview of the duty of the Police Officer, and therefore, sanction under Section 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code was not necessary. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class also held that the sanction required under the provisions of the Corruption Act was also not necessary as the process was issued only under Sections 385, 448, 504 and 506 of the indian Penal Code. It does appear that the learned Magistrate did not deal with the question of limitation which was tried to be agitated before him in the Application-Exhibit 28. However, the learned Magistrate definitely appears to have rejected the said application in view of the orders passed, rejecting the application-Exhibt 28.