TAPAS KUMAR RATH Vs. HAREKRUSHNA PRADHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner calls in question legality of the order passed by the learned SDJM, Udala refusing to take cognizance in respect of the offences against the sole accused on the ground of absence of sanction as envisaged under Section 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, 'the Code') in 1. C. C. No. 38/1996.

(2.) THE facts as uncurtained are that the petitioner as complainant set the criminal action into motion by instituting the aforesaid complaint case for the offences under Sections. 323. 294, 341 and 220, IPC. The allegations, as depicted are that the opposite party, the O.I.C., Khunta Police station was involved in a vigilance case wherein the present petitioner was a witness for which he was pressurised time and again not to depose against the said 0. I. C. Having failed in his attempt, the O. I. C. on 10 -4 -1996 at about 8 a. m. arrested the petitioner on the strength of a non -bailable warrant issued in Criminal Misc. Case No. 65/94 and detained him in police hazat whole day and night and did not forward him to Court in spite of repeated requests by his relatives. Not only he refused to forward him but contrary to all norms he absused the complainant -petitioner in filthy language, assaulted him by slaps, kick and fist blows and kept him without supply of food and water. On the next day, 11 -4 -1996 though a recall order from the Court was produced before the accused -opposite party, instead of releasing him he forwarded the complainant to the Court by handing him to the escort party. The petitioner was not produced before the learned SDJM, but was released by the C. S. I. attached to the Court of the SDJM. With these allegations the complaint petition was filed and the learned SDJM recorded the initial statement on 23 -4 -1996 and adjourned the case to 25 -4 -1996 for enquiry under Section 202 of the Code. On behalf of the complainant three witnesses were examined who corroborated the statement of the complainant. The learned Magistrate passed the impugned order on 8 -5 -1996 referring to Section 197(1) of the Code, and came to hold that sanction was necessary for taking cognizance and in absence of the same the complaint petition was liable to be dismissed, and accordingly he dismissed the same.

(3.) MR . A.K. Mishra, the learned counsel for the opposite party -accused has supported the impugned order. He has canvassed that the finding of the learned Magistrate that sanction in the present case is necessary is not unjustified inasmuch as he has recorded that the act complained of by the O. I. C. is integrally connected with the duty, attached to the office and inseparable. The learned counsel has also submitted that the complaint case has been instituted with mala fide intention to cause harassment to the opposite party to shatter his morals.