JODH SINGH Vs. CHANDI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent who happened to be a constable in the Haryana Police, and had been summoned along-with 12 others to face trial under Sections 323/148/149/504/365/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, has been discharged by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, in exercise of her revisional jurisdiction on the ground that for his prosecution prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was required. I find it wholly unnecessary to advert to the facts of the case in any great detail. It is the undisputed position that the averments made against him in the complaint do not suggest even remotely that any of the actions taken by the accused including the respondent was taken in the discharge of his/their official duty. All that the learned Judge has relied to discharge the respondent is that in paras 39 and 40 of the complaint, a reference has been made of FIRs No. 349 and 350 recorded at 11.00 P.M. and 12.00 A.M. on 27.7.1985 and 28.7.1985 respectively, the contents of which disclose that while being apprehended the accused assaulted the police party and thus entitled the latter to cause injuries to them that is the complainant and his co-accused. What the learned Judge omitted to consider is that the stand of the complainant was that these First Information Reports had been recorded after the occurrence with a view to create defence for the accused. Concededly this was no stage for the learned Judge to go into the veracity of the allegations made by the complainant. It has repeatedly been laid down that at the initial stages of the case to settle the controversy as to whether the sanction under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is required in a particular case, all that has to be seen is to examine the assertions made in the complaint and not to weigh or evaluate them in order to find out their veracity. Equally not in dispute is the proposition that the Court is entitled to come to such a conclusion if at any stage of the trial it finds material justifying that. Admittedly no material or evidence has yet been recorded in the case. Therefore, there was nothing before the revisional Court to conclude that what the respondent and his co-accused did was either in the discharge of their official duty or they were purporting to act in the discharge of any such duty.

(2.) I , thus, set aside the impugned order of the revisional Court and send the case back to the trial Magistrate for disposal in accordance with law. Case remanded.