Sant Lal vs Bhagwati Parshad, A.S.I.Police

S.S.Dewan, J.

This criminal revision arises out of the order dated May 25, 1983, passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala, in a Criminal complaint No. 2441 of 1979 filed by the complainant Sant Lal against the accusedrespondent under Ss. 218, 500, 342 and 385, Indian Penal Code, in the Court below :

The relevant portions of the complaint filed by the petitioner are as follows :

(i) That the accusedrespondent, who was then Incharge Police Post, No. 3, Ambala City, was temporarily posted at Raipur Rani on 2661978 for Panchayat election duty. The complainant was elected as a member of the gram Panchayat. After the result was declared the accused demanded Rs. 100/ from the complainant for the purchase of 4 bottles of liquor to celebrate his victory but the complainant refused to oblige him;

(ii) that on 691978 at about 6.45 a.m., the accused accompanied by some police officials and a boy in custody whose identity was later on revealed to the Ved Parkash son of Surjan came in a police jeep and stopped at the shop of the complainant;

(iii) that the accused asked the complainant to hand over the stolen chain which he received from the boy in custody and the complainant said that he had no such chain, upon which the accused caught hold of him by his arm and dragged him towards the jeep;

(iv) that the said Ved Parkash snatched the gold chain of the wife of Mohan Lal and the same was stated to have been pledged by him with the complainant and a case under Section 379/356, Indian Penal Code was registered against him; and

(v) that while investigating the case, the accused asked the complainant to scribe a receipt pledging a gold chain with him by Ved Parkash in the presence of Beni Parshad of Raipur Rani and Lakshman Dass of village Barwala. After recording the sworn statements of the complainant and his witnesses in the case, the learned Magistrate found that there were sufficient grounds to proceed against the respondent and accordingly issued summons to him. This order of issuing summons against the respondent was challenged. Whether sanction of the Government was necessary before instituting the proceedings against the respondent was raised in the application filed by the respondent and the same was allowed by the trial Magistrate on May 25, 1983, and the respondent was discharged.

Mr. H.N. Mehtani, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the respondent being the Assistant SubInspector of Police, sanction under S. 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) is not required in this case as the acts alleged against him were in excess of his official duty and cannot be said to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty.

In Amrik Singh v. State of Pepsu, 1955 (1) SCR 1302, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held :

"That it is not every offence committed by a public servant that requires sanction for prosecution under Section 197 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure; nor even every act done by him while he is actually engaged in the performance of his official duties; but if the act complained of is directly concerned with his official duties so that, if questioned, it could be claimed to have been done by virtue or the office, then sanction would be necessary and that would be so, irrespective of whether it was, in fact, a proper discharge of his duties, because that would really be a matter of defence on, the merits which would have to be investigated at the trial and could not arise at the stage of the grant of sanction which must precede the institution of the prosecution."

In Matajog Dobey v. M. C. Bhari, AIR 1956 S.C. 44, it was held :

"that the offence alleged to have been committed must have something to do. or must be related in some manner with the discharge of official duty. No question of sanction can arise under Section 197, unless the Act complained of is an offence; the only point to determine is whether it was committed in discharge of official duty. There must be reasonable connection between the Act and the official ditty. It does not matter even if the act exceeds what is strictly necessary for the discharge of the duty. As this question will arise only at a later stage when the trial proceeds on the merits. What the Court must find out is whether the act and the official duty are so interrelated that one can postulate reasonably that it was done by the accused in the performance of the official duty, though possibly in excess of the needs and requirements the situation."

On the above view of the law on this aspect of the matter, it is to be seen if the acts complained of are directly concerned with the official duties of the respondent. If the offences alleged to have been committed by him had something to do or were related in some manner with the discharge of the official duty of an Investigating Officer then a sanction under Section 197 of the Code could be required to prosecute him. It emerges from the record that Ved Parkash accused in a chain snatching case (FIR No. 343 dated 1681978 under Ss. 379/356. Indian Penal Code. registered at Police Station Ambala City) had made a statement that he had pledged the chain with the petitioner. Sant Lal In the premises the respondent being the Investigating Officer was to knock at the door of the petitioner to investigate the matter. If he bad committed any excesses during the course of investigation the same was so inseparably connected with the official duty so as to form part of the same transaction i.e. the urge to investigate the offence alleged to committed by Ved Parkash the chainsnatcher. That being so, it is not to be seen at this stage that if the complained of act were in fact done in the proper discharge of the official ditties or not for that is a matter which has to be examined at the trial, after sanction for the same is obtained from the proper authority. Moreover. it cannot be said that sanction is not necessary as the said acts exceeded what was strictly necessary for the discharge of the official duty, for this question would arise only at a later stage, when the trial proceeds on merits after sanction is accorded for the same. No question of sanction can arise under S 197 unless the acts complained of are offences. So even if it is said. or prima facie shown that the Investigating Officer in performing his duty did something which was in excess of the needs or requirements of the situation, still on the facts and circumstances of this case,. sanction under S 197 of the Code will be required to prosecute the respondent.

The learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that the offences allegedly. committed by the respondent could not be said to have been committed by the respondent while performing his duty towards the maintenance of the public order. This is just a bald submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and it has not been supported by any principle or precedent. It cannot be said that the respondent while investigating a criminal case of chainsnatching by Ved Parkash was not performing the duty towards the maintenance of the public order.

In the above consideration sanction under S. 197 of the Code, is necessary in this case to take cognizance of any offence alleged against the respondent In the result. I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the trial Magistrate and there is no merit in this revision also and is dismissed. The record be sent back.