PRAHALLAD DORA Vs. KISHORE CHANDRA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE principal question that arises for consideration in this application under Section 398, Criminal Procedure Code is whether on the materials on record the S.D.J.M., Malkangiri, was right in dismissing the complaint petition filed by the petitioner for want of sanction as required under Section 197. Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner, a member of Janata Party, filed a petition of complaint on 7.8.1981 before the Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Malkangiri, alleging inter alia that on 24.7.1981 the opposite party committed offences under Sections 294/506/342, Indian Penal Code and praying to Court to take cognizance against the accused for these offences. The gist of the allegations in the complaint petition was that on 24.7.1981 a demonstration against the enhancement of bus -fare was launched all over the State and so also at Malkangiri, On that date while the petitioner was announcing over the mike near the bus stand regarding programme for the day, the opposite party who was then the Sub -Divisional Police Officer, Malkangiri, came there and said to the petitioner 'Mr. Dora, you are arrested. What non -sense you are speaking. I will see your end' The petitioner alleged that the opposite party also abused him in Oriya taking the name of his mother and directed the petitioner to be taken to the police station. These abusive words and threat given by the opposite party caused the petitioner annoyance. He was taken to the police station and detained there from 12 noon to 8.30 p. m. without any reason and without any legal for such detention. The petitioner further alleged the action of the opposite party was malicious and vindictive to wreck vengeance harming his reputation in the estimation of the public and defaming him thereby. The learned Magistrate by his order, dated 7. 8. 1981 decided to hold an enquiry under Section 202, Criminal Procedure Code to ascertain the truth of the allegations made in the complaint petition. In course of the said enquiry, statements of two witnesses Gangadhar Buruda and Mehinga Singh were recorded. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate took up the question whether sanction for prosecution as required under Section 197 Criminal Procedure Code is necessary in the case. On considering the matter, the Court held that sanction was necessary before taking cognizance of offence alleged against the opposite party and passed the impugned order dismissing the complaint under Section 203, Criminal Procedure Code for want of sanction.

(2.) BEFORE proceeding to consider the correctness of impugned order, it would be helpful to quote the provisions of Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code.

(3.) Now we may examine the present - case in the light of the principles discussed above. As already stated, the opposite party was the Deputy Superintendent of Police in charge of the Sub -Division of Malkangiri on1 the date of occurrence. Witness Gangadhar Buruda in his statement has said that on 24.7. 1981 there Vas a demonstration at Malkangiri bus stand against the enhancement of bus fare. There was a request to the public not to travel in any bus. Five to six buses were stopped. At about 12 to 12. 30. p. m. when the petitioner was announcing in the mike that there would be a public meeting at Malkangiri, the opposite party came in uniform and uttered the alleged offending words. To the same effect is also the statement of the other witness, Mehinga Singh. From the aforesaid materials, the learned S. D. J. M. has held that the opposite party was at the bus stand obviously in connection with the maintenance of law and order and the above mentioned acts of his were taken by him while discharging his official duties or at least while purporting to do so. As already noticed, for the applicability of Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code it is not necessary that the impugned action should strictly fall within the purviews of official duty of the person complained against. It is sufficient to show that the said action was taken in purported exercise of official duty though might have been in excess thereof. From the materials indicated above, it cannot be said that the action alleged to have been taken by the opposite party was taken in his private capacity.