RAMA CHANDRA ALIAS RAMAPANDAN SAHU Vs. NIRANJAN ROUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One of the sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure, be it of 1898 or 1973, the scope and ambit of which has repeatedly come for analysis before the Supreme Court and various High Courts is S. 197. That is because the section is intended as a protection against malicious implication of public servants. Presently we are concerned with the case under S.197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). This section is designed to facilitate an effective and unhampered performance by public servants of their official duty, by providing for scrutiny into the allegations against them by their superior authorities, and prior sanction for their prosecution is a condition precedent to the cognizance of cases against them by courts so that they may be protected from frivolous, vexatious or false prosecution for offences alleged to have been committed by them while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their official duty. The section has to be construed neither too narrowly nor too widely because in a strict sense the commission of an offence can never be a part of ones official duty.

(2.) Allegations here relate to an incident which purportedly took place on 13-3-1988. According to the petitioner, who was complainant in I.C.C. No, 14 of 1988 in the court of Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate (hereinafter referred to as 'SDJM'), Champua, in village Jhumpura there is a bi-weekly market where the adivasi people of the area sell fuel wood and wooden planks. On the alleged date of occurrence, opposite party No. 1 Niranjan Rout threatened some of those adivasi people to put them in the lock up for no ostensible reason. Out of fear, those adivasis left the market leaving behind the wooden materials like fuel and wooden planks. Opposite party No. 1 who is supposed to be protector of life and property of the citizens, removed those wooden materials in side the compound wall of the Out Post where he was stationed as Sub-Inspector of Police. Two labourers were engaged for removal of materials. After working about five hours for removal of the material, the labourers asked for their wages. Considering the amount paid at the rate of Rs. 4/- each they demanded more. Instead of paying them the legitimate dues, opposite party No. 2, then posted as Officer-in-charge, Champua Out Post, lost his temper and asked them to get out of the Out Post premises. The labourers grudgingly left the Out Post, and reported the incident to the local Sarpanch and the M.L.A. The said persons along with some prominent persons of the village went to the Out Post for redressing the grievances of these labourers. But opposite party No. 1 got enraged on being questioned about his illegal acts, abused them and asked them to go out of the out post. He threatened to take them to custody if they did not get out. After having failed in their attempt to lodge complaint with the Collector due to his absence, the complainant-petitioner and some others went to the Police out post in the evening. By then Opp. Party No. 2 and the Forest Ranger were already present in the Police out post. When the matter was being explained to them, opposite party No. 2 got suddenly irritated, abused them all and asked them to leave the police out post. During such exchange of words, opp. party No. 2 assaulted the complainant-petitioner by the butt-end of a gun as a result of which he sustained bleeding injury on his face. Many others were also assaulted. The M.L.A. was also abused in filthy language. Some of the villagers were detained in the police out post and were produced before the Magistrate on 14-3-1988. During the incident, while opp. party No. 2 was acting in inhumanly manner, Kegalhari Dehury requested him not to do so. Opposite party No. 1 gave him a kick blow and made him sit by force. He was also abused in obscene language. Opp. party No.2 arrested the petitioner and seven others and brought them to custody at Champua police station. The victim persons were medically examined before they were forwarded to the court of SDJM, Champua. They remained in custody til1 25-3-1988, and were released on bail on the very day and after his release the petitioner filed the complaint on 28-3-1988. Initial statement was recorded on 29-3-1988. As revealed from the order of the learned SDJM, six witnesses were examined under the provisions of S. 202 of the Code. By order dated 12-8-1988, the learned SDJM refused to issue process on the ground that sanction of State Government was required. According to him, the acts complained of have got reasonable nexus between the acts of public servants, who are accused persons in this case and the offence complained of. He, however, proceeded on the assumption that though the accused persons may have exceeded their limit at the time of discharging their duty, they have not committed any offence in their private capacity and in any view of the matter sanction of State Government is required for their prosecution under Ss. 323/ 325, IPC. He also concluded that offence under S. 294, IPC was not made out.

(3.) According to the petitioner, the acts complained of had no nexus with any official duty. Therefore, the learned SDJM was not justified in his conclusion that sanction was necessary. It is also submitted that the learned SDJM without any material basis came to hold that offence under S. 294 was not made out. The learned counsel for the opposite parties, however, submitted that the background of fact as described by the petitioner is not correct and on the contrary the opposite parties were obstructed from performing their official duties and the mob which had come to the police station was in violent mood and demanded forcible entry into the residential quarter of opp. party No. 1. Many of them were under the influence of liquor and abused the officers in obscene words, and threatened to shoot arrows at them. A police constable and opp. party No. 1 sustained serious injuries. When police took counter action to disperse the mob, some of the persons participating in the mob were arrested. In that background, it is submitted that there is no illegality in the order of the learned SDJM. The offence alleged to have been committed had relation and nexus with the discharge of official duty and even if the act exceeds, what is strictly necessary for the discharge of the official duty sanction is necessary.