ATKO KUJUR Vs. MAHALAT SA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application Under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the order dated 7.7.1994 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Jharsuguda in I.C.C.No. 11 of 1994 taking cognizance of offence alleged to have been committed Under Sections 323/294/506, IPC as well as the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda in Criminal Revision No. 62/17/36 of 1994 -95 -99 dismissing the same.

(2.) AS it appears from the averments made in the petition the petitioner was working as Sub -Inspector of Police in Belpahar Police Station on the alleged date and at the time of occurrence. A complaint case was filed against the petitioner and the O.LC. of Belpahar Police Station alleging that the complainant had reported against one Prafulla Sahani and some others who had criminally trespassed in his land and committed mischief and when he protested he was threatened with dire consequence. Though such a report was made by the complainant the O.I.C. of Belpahar Police Station refused to receive the complaint and complainant sought for intervention of the Superintendent of Police, Jharsuguda by filing a petition before him. The S.P. directed the complainant to report Belpahar Police Station on 24.2.1994 and accordingly the complainant alongwith his witness went to the Belpahar Police Station on 24.2.1994 at about 4 p.m. It is alleged that after the complainant and the witnesses came to the police station the present petitioner got enraged and abused the complainant in obscene words, caught -hold of his shirt collar, dealt slap and hackled him. It is also alleged that the O.I.C. abused the complainant in obscene language and attempted to give a slap to the complainant.

(3.) BEFORE this Court only one point has been raised with regard to absence of sanction. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in absence of sanction no Court can take cognizance of any offence against the petitioner who was working as Sub -Inspector of Belpahar Police Station. Section 197, Cr.P.C. prescribes that any person who is a public servant not removable from his service save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offences except with previous sanction. This provision clearly prescribes that only when offence is alleged to have committed by a public servant in discharge of his official duty, the Court shall not take cognizance in absence of any sanction. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon a decision of this Court reported in 1991 (1) Crimes 629 (Ori.) (Anadi Charan Jena v. Bijaya Kumar Mohanty) submits that before prosecuting a public servant sanction Under Section 197, Cr.P.C. is necessary. Reliance is also placed on a decision of this Court reported in (1999) 17 OCR 369 (Basant Kishore Swain v. Rama Chandra Mohapatra) where this Court held that the Asst. Sub -Inspector of Police have been notified as public servants and sanction is necessary for prosecution of such officer. On facts of that case, the Court was of the view that protection Under Section 197, Cr.P.C. was necessary. The facts alleged in the said case is that P.W.I who is the son of complainant/informant was brought to the outpost from his house by the police officer for investigation in connection with theft of a gold -chain and was kept in police lock -up. Request of the complainant to release him went unheeded and in addition P.W.I was allegedly abused in filthy language and was assaulted by a batton on different parts of the body. Considering these facts this Court was of the view that since the act alleged took place during investigation of offence, it cannot be said that such act is not in discharge of official duty. Reliance is also placed on a decision reported in Judgment Today 2000 (Suppl. 1) SC 529 (Abdul Wahav Ansari v. State of Bihar and another). The apex Court in the said decision was of the view that the question of sanction Under Section 197, Cr.P.C. can be raised and considered at any stage of the proceedings and further in considering the question whether or not sanction for prosecution is required, it is not necessary for the Court to confine itself to the allegations in the complaint and it can take into account all the materials on the record at the time when the question is raised and falls for consideration. Reliance is placed on a decision reported in 2001 (I) OLR 260 (Sanjeeb Kumar Marik v. Bal Gopal Mishra and another) where this Court held that if there is a coherent nexus between the act complained of as an offence and the duty of the public servant, sanction becomes necessary even if such act is in excess of his exact duty. In the said decision this Court considering the fact held that even if any excess was committed in discharge of his duty, that excess was plainly in relation to his official duty in the sense that it was professed to be so and it was meant to convey to the mind of the complainant that he was acting under the authority of his office. In the other decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner the Courts are also of the same view as indicated above.