LAWS(ORI)-1991-4-18

TRILOCHAN BARIK Vs. RAGHUNATH BAL

Decided On April 29, 1991
TRILOCHAN BARIK Appellant
V/S
RAGHUNATH BAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main question that arises in this revision against the order dated 29-6-87 passed by the S.D.J.M., Anandapur, in I.C.C. No. 11 of 1987 is whether sanction as required under S.197, Cr.P.C. is necessary for prosecution of the Officer-in-Charge of Ghasipura Police Station.

(2.) V The petitioner before this Court filed a complaint on 13-5-97 in the Court of S.D.J.M., Anandapur, alleging therein that on 8-5-87 at about 6 p.m. the opposite party went to the betel shop of the complainant installed at the Ghasipura bus-stand and without any rhyme or reason started abusing the complainant as "SALA, MAGHIA TO GANDIRE CHARBI HOIGALANI" and gave two slaps on the cheek of the complainant and a kick at the buttock and thereafter dragged him to the police station. It is alleged that the complainant suffered from bodily pain and was insulted and humiliated in presence of public. Hence the complaint under Sections 294/323, I.P.C.

(3.) The S.D.J.M. after recording the initial statement of the complainant, conducted an enquiry under S. 202, Cr.P.C. Two witnesses were examined on the side of the complainant on 10-6-87. The S.D.J.M. thereafter on the same day called for a report from the Officer-in-Charge of the said police station and asked the latter to submit a detailed report about the case. The report of the opposite party revealed that the complainant was involved in Ghasipura P.S. Case No.38/87 dated 8-10-87 under Ss.379, 506/294, I.P.C. and that after investigation, charge-sheet had been submitted against the complainant. After receiving this report, the S.D.J.M. came to the conclusion that the alleged occurrence took place during the course of investigation against the complainant and since the opposite party was the Investigating Officer, the alleged occurrence in the present case took place while the opposite party was discharging his duty as a public servant in investigating into the particular case. By the impugned order dated 29-6-87 the S.D.J.M. being satisfied that in a case of this nature sanction was necessary and in the absence of sanction, he declined to take cognizance and rejected the complaint petition under S. 203, Cr.P.C. as mentioned above.