ANADI CHARAN JENA Vs. BIJAYA KUMAR MOHANTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Criminal Revision the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Champua, on 7.7.1989 in a complaint case instituted by the opposite party taking cognizance of offences under sections 220 and 221 I.P.C. against the petitioner and two other police officers, has been challenged.

(2.) A few facts may be stated. The opposite party is a public spirited man of Barbil in Kconjhar district. He found that rice and paddy were being smuggled from Keonjhar district to Bihar. He approached the civil supplies and the police authorities of Barbil to check the smuggling, and those authorities advised him and his companions to give information to them with regard to the smuggling so that legal action could be taken against the smugglers. On 26.10.1988 at about 9.00 p.m. the opposite party got information that a truck bearing registration No. O.R.J. 2341 being loaded with the from the godown of a rice dealer, named, Han Charan Gupta, was about to proceed to the State of Bihar. So along with his companions the opposite party followed the truck by scooter and motor-cycle and obstructed it in between the border of the two States. It was found that 75 bags of rice were loaded in the truck which otherwise would have been smuggled to the State of Bihar. The opposite party and his companion Rajes Mohanta came to the police station and wanted the petitioner and the other two police officers to take action for commission of an offence punishable under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act by the owner of the goods and the driver of the truck. Although oral complaint was made and request was also made to act at once in apprehending the offender and making seizure of the goods, the petitioner, who was acting as Officer-in-charge of Barbil Police Station turned back at the opposite party and abused him in filthy language saying that he was not his boss so as to give orders. It is needless to say that neither the petitioner nor the other two police officers took any action whatsoever to check the smuggling, but, on the other hand, detained the petitioner and some of his companions in the police lock up from the midnight till midday of 27.10.1988. Finding the apathy of the petitioner and the other two police officers of the police station, the opposite party instituted a complaint case in the learned Court below which recorded the initial statement and directed an enquiry udder section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code for short). During enquiry, five witnesses were examined and on perusal of all the materials and the statements the learned Court found that there was a prima facie case against the petitioner and the other two police officers under sections 220 and 221, I.P.C. and so he took cognizance of the same and directed issuance of process.

(3.) Mr. Jameswar Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, raised only one point, i.e. without sanction for the prosecution under section 197 9f the Code the learned Court below could not take cognizance of the offences against the petitioner and the other two police officers. He did not, however, challenge the finding that there was a primafacie case against them.