GANAPATHY GOUNDAN Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner seeks to have quashed the order of the Sub-Magistrate, Palladam, committing him for trial to the Sessions Court, Coimbatore, for offences Under Secs.330, 343 and 348, I.P.C. Petitioner is a Village Magistrate and contends that the commitment is invalid for want of sanction Under Section 197(1), Criminal P.C. The allegation is that on a complaint put in to him by D. W. 6, brother of a woman called Ramakkal, wife of P. W. 2, petitioner sent for P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 at different times, had them brought by the village menials to the chavadi and shut them up there, and while they were there also tortured P. Ws. 1 and 2 by pushing needles under their finger nails, in order to extort a confession of the murder. As a matter of fact, the woman had not been murdered and turned up later safe and sound. It is urged that as the Village Munsif has authority to arrest and confine suspected murderers, the alleged offences were committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty.

(2.) The exact import of that phrase and of the vaguer phrase which stood in its place prior to the amendment of 1923 has been the subject of numerous decisions. My own view is that the phrase in the amended section means: doing or purporting to do the sort of act which the law or rules framed under the law allow him to do by virtue of his office.

(3.) It is only in respect of acts done under colour of his office that a Village Munsif is entitled to and is given protection under the section. In this view there is no difficulty in deciding the case so far as the allegation of wrongful confinement is concerned. Confinement of a person on suspicion that he has committed a murder is permitted to the Village Munsif by Section 13, Madras Village Police Regulation, 11 of 1816. So that such confinement is the sort of act which the law will in certain circumstances permit. In a case then where the circumstances do not in law justify the confinement, the Village Munsif would nevertheless be purporting to do an Act which is permitted by virtue of his office and Section 197 would apply. The charge Under Secs.343 and. 348 involves the charge of wrongful confinement and therefore will require previous sanction Under Section 197. But whore the act is not the sort of act which the Village Munsif is permitted by the law to do, I do not see how it can be contended that in committing it he is acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. It cannot be contended that his official duty permits him to do anything of the nature of causing hurt or applying torture to persons confined by him lawfully or under pretext of law. I would therefore be prepared to hold that in the matter of the alleged offence Under Section 330 no sanction is required.