NANGKAR TAMING Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision is preferred by the petitioner/accused Shri Nangkar Taming under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order dated 30-11-91 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jonai in G. R. Case No. 130/1984 by virtue of which the learned Court below has justified the cognizance of offence so taken and non bailable warrant so issued against the present petitioner holding that the protection under Section 197 Cr. P.C., in the present case need not be extended to him and hence cognizance so taken on 8-4-91 was held to be justified without sanction of the Government as the act alleged to have been done by the petitioner a police officer at the relevant time as Sub-Inspector of Police resorting two rounds of firing by the service revolver on 8-6-84 as a result of which as per the prosecution case put by the informant in Jonai P. S. Case No. 129/84 registered under Section 302/325 of the I.P.C. one Dutti Ram Gogoi lost his life, cannot be said to be acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official colour or duty.

(2.) The facts of the case put in narrow compass as under :- For the occurrence taking place on 8-6-84 the matter was reported by filing the first information report and on 8-6-84 itself by the present petitioner on the basis of which Jonai P. S. Case No. 119/84 got registered, a copy of which is filed and marked as Annexure II in this Criminal Revision Petition and another report lodged by one Shri Khagen Lahon as informant on 16-6-84 i.e. after a lapse of 7 days registered as Jonai P. S. Case No. 127/84 copy of which so filed is marked as Annexure III. The details of the content of both the FIR need not be repeated, however in Jonai P. S. Case No. 119/84 final report was submitted on 28-2-89, the copy of which is marked as Annexure IV and in this case (Jonai P. S. Case No. 127/84) cognizance of offence was taken by the learned Court below as detailed above against the petitioner. Police Personnel on 8-4-91 without extending protection and under Section 197 of the Cr. P. C. and by the impugned order dt. 30-11-91, the copy of which is filed marked as Annexure-VI, on the petition so filed by this petitioner that the sanction was necessary the same was rejected on 30-11-91. Hence the Criminal Revision Petition.

(3.) The only point for consideration is as to whether in the instant case, in the background of the facts and circumstances, sanction was necessary to be obtained as provided under Section 197(1) of the Cr. P.C. prior to taking cognizance and whether the petitioner-accused is entitled for such protection as a Public servant ?