Sundararaja Pillai vs Kamalpatcha

K.N. Mudaliyar, J.—Sundararaja Pillai the complainant is the Petitioner. He it the village karnam. His complaint is that the accused officer who happens to be the Tahsildar dealt a blow on his neck and pushed him. He appears to have filed a complaint for offences u/s 323 I.P.C. and 352 I.P.C. The complaint was takes on file.

The learned trial Magistrate (Sub Magistrate of Mudikulathur upheld the objection that the complaint was not sustainable for want of sanction under Section. 197 Code of Criminal Procedure.

Then the matter was taken up before the Sessions Judge by way of a revision. The learned Sessions Judge held that the petition does not lie under Sections 435 and 439 Code of Criminal Procedure. He rejected the petition.

Aggrieved by the order of the learned Sessions Judge the complainant-Petitioner seeks to revise the order before this Court.

In my view the learned Sub Magistrate of Mudukulathur erred is his reasoning in support of the finding that there is no sanction for the complaint u/s 197 Code of Criminal Procedure.

In the case in question the Tahsildar has gone in the jeep and presumption is that he would have gone to do official duties. The complainant a karnam stated to be under suspension at the time of occurrence was questioned by the Tahsildar under color of authority at the beginning. So it is reasonable to hold that the Tahsildar must have been doing his duties till the very minute when he attacked the complainant as alleged.

He appears to have relied on the decision reported in Subkiah v. Ramacharlu 1939 M.L.J. 11. page 119. The learned Sub Magistrate ought to have conceived the scope of Section 197 relating to the avert acts attributed to the accused Tahsildar in the light of the recent decisions of the Supreme Court in Prabhakar V. Sinari Vs. Shanker Anant Verlekar, . In P. Arulswami v. State of Madras 1967 M.L.J. Cr. 483 the learned Judges of the Supreme Court held:

It is only when the act complained of is within the scope of the official duties or in excess of or is directly concerned with the official duties so that, if questioned, it could be claimed to have been done by virtue of the office, that sanction would be necessary.

In Prabhakar V. Sinari Vs. Shanker Anant Verlekar, their Lordships observed as follows:

What has to be found out is whether the act and the official duty were so interrelated that one could 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 of the situation. It is not every offence committed by a public servant which required sanction for prosecution u/s 197(1) nor even every act done by him while he was actually engaged in the performance of his official duties.

Judging the overt act attributed against the accused Tahsildar in the light of the statement of law enunciated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court it becomes apparently clear that the overt act of dealing a blow on the neck of the complainant and pushing him would certainly not be interrelated with his official duty as a Tahsildar.

In the result, the Sub Magistrate of Mudukulathur is directed to proceed with the enquiry as expeditiously as possible.