MAHENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the complainant-petitioner Mahendra Kumar against the order dated 5-7-2001 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balotra in Criminal Case No. 7/96 in which he came to the conclusion that the sanction of SP, Barmer for prosecuting accused respondents Guman Singh and Karan Singh for the offence under Sections 451 and 323, IPC was not proper and thus, by invoking the provisions of Section 258, Cr. P. C., he dropped the proceedings against the accused respondents and discharged them of the said offences.

(2.) It arises in the following circumstances:- On 18-12-1995, a report was lodged by the complainant-petitioner in the Police Station Balotra stating inter alia that some police officials entered in his shop illegally and, thereafter, they gave beating to him and some other persons. On this report, police registered the case and started investigation and during investigation, Mahendra Kumar (present petitioner-complainant), Suresh Kumar and Shrawan Kumar were got medically examined and some injuries were found on their person. After usual investigation, police submitted challan for the offence under Sections 451, 323, IPC against the accused Guman Singh, Karan Singh and Jagmal Singh (police officials) in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balotra and on 2-1-1996, the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balotra took cognizance for the said offences against the accused Guman Singh, Karan Singh and Jagmal Singh. It may be stated here that accused Jagmal Singh died during the pendency of the case and, therefore, proceedings against him were dropped by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balotra vide his order dated 7-11-2000. Thereafter, an application was moved on behalf of the accused respondents Guman Singh and Karan Singh in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balotra on 12-7-1996 stating therein that since they are police officials, therefore, they could not be prosecuted without a valid sanction, as required under Section 197, Cr. P. C. The said application of the accused respondents was rejected by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balotra through his order dated 24-10-1996. Aggrieved from the said order dated 24-10-1996 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balotra, the accused respondents filed revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra. The learned Sessions Judge, Balotra through his judgment dated 3-3-1997 allowed the revision petition holding inter alia that valid sanction was required for prosecuting the accused respondents and the accused respondents could not be prosecuted unless there was a valid sanction as required under Section 197, Cr. P. C. Against the said judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra dated 3-3-1997, a criminal revision was filed by the complainant-petitioner before this Court and the same was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 20-3-1998. Thus, the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra through his judgment dated 3-3-1997 on the point that valid sanction as required under Section 197, Cr. P. C. for prosecuting accused respondents was must, were confirmed by this Court vide judgment dated 20-3-1998. Thereafter, on 24-8-1999 in the same case, an application was filed through APP along with sanction which was given by SP, Barmer on 12-8-1999 with the prayer that since sanction has been obtained, therefore, accused respondents be prosecuted now. On that application, the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balotra again took cognizance on 8-9-1999 against the accused respondents for the offence under Sections 451, 323, IPC. Thereafter, on 27-2-2001, a fresh application was filed by the accused respondents before the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balotra under the provisions of Sections 468 and 197, Cr. P. C. with the prayer that the order dated 8-9-1999 by which cognizance was taken against them, be quashed as the sanction alleged to have been given by the SP, Barmer is illegal and the sanction should have been given by the State Government. The said application of the accused respondents was decided by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate vide his order dated 5-7-2001 in which he came to the conclusion that the proceedings are not barred by limitation as the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra through his judgment dated 3-3-1997 has clearly held that in case proper sanction is obtained, the accused respondents could be prosecuted and on point of sanction, it was observed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate that as per the provisions of Section 197, Cr. P. C., the valid sanction could only be given by the State Government and in the present case, since the sanction to prosecute the accused respondents was given by the SP, Barmer is invalid, therefore, by invoking the provisions of Section 258, Cr. P. C., he dropped the proceedings against the accused respondents and discharged them for the offence under Sections 451 and 323, IPC. Aggrieved from the said order dated 5-7-2001 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balotra, this revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-complainant.

(3.) In this revision petition, there are two-fold contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant; (1) that no sanction is required in the present case as the act which was done by the accused respondents was not done in the discharge of their official duties and (2) that if the sanction is required for prosecuting accused respondents, the sanction given by the SP, Barmer is a valid sanction. Hence, it was prayed that this revision petition be allowed and the impugned order dated 5-7-2001 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balotra be set aside.