Muthuswamy Gounder vs C.P. Singharam

Maheswaran, J.—This revision is directed against the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore in Crl. M.P. No. 5 of 1978

discharging the 12th accused in C.C. No. 417 of 1977, on his file which was a private complaint filed by the revision petitioner herein. The 12th

accused-respondent is an Inspector of Police. The contention urged before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was that sanction from the State

Government has to be obtained for prosecuting 12th accused who is an Inspector of Police and such sanction having not been obtained, the

prosecution of 12th accused is bad and therefore the 12th accused should be discharged. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was of the view

that the Inspector of Police ""is a gazetted officer"" and as such only the State Government can remove him from service and under these

circumstances, sanction has to be obtained from the State. Government for prosecuting him and that not having been done, the respondent-12th

accused has to be discharged. In the end, he allowed the petition and discharged the 12th accused. The complainant-revision petitioner is

aggrieved and has filed this revision.

The order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate of Coimbatore is not sustainable. S.197 , Crl. P.C., runs thus-

S. 197(1). When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of

the Government, is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official

duty, no court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction-(a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case

may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of Union, of the Central Government; (b) in

the case of a person who is employed or as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with

the affairs of a State, of the State Government.

(2).......(3).........(4)................

The question is whether the Inspector of Police, the 12th accused, is removable only by the State Government, My attention was invited to S.10

of the Tamil Nadu District Police Act, 1959 which is to the following effect.

Dismissal, suspension or reduction of officers of the Subordinate Police. Subject to the provisions of Art. 311 of the Constitution and to such

rules as the State Government may from time to time make under this Act, the Inspector General, Deputy Inspector General and District

Superintendent of Police may at any time dismiss, suspend or reduce to a lower post, or time scale, or to a lower stage in time scale any officer of

the Subordinate Police whom they shall think remiss or negligent in the discharge of his duty or otherwise unfit for the same and may order the

recovery from the pay of any such police officer of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government by his negligence or breach of

orders.

The Inspector of Police is a subordinate Officer. The expression ''Subordinate Police Officer'' shall mean all police officers of and below the rank

of an Inspector See S.1 (Interpretation) of Tamil Nadu District Police Act 1859). Therefore, the Inspector General, Deputy Inspector General or

District Superintendent of Police may dismiss or reduce to a lower post, or time scale, or to a lower stage in time scale, any officer of the

subordinate Police whom they shall think is remiss or negligent in the discharge of his duty. It is therefore clear that no sanction of the State

Government for the prosecution of the 12th accused-respondent is necessary. The order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate is incorrect. The revision

is therefore allowed and the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate is set aside. He will proceed with the trial of the case before him and dispose it

of as expeditiously as possible.