NAGRAJ versus STATE OF MYSORE

Citation: [1964] 3 S.C.R. 671 · Decided: 08-05-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO, RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J.R. MUDHOLKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

3 s.a.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
671 
NAGRAJ 
v. 
STATE OF MYSORE 
(K. SuBBA 
RAGHUBAR DAYAL and 
J. R. MUDHOLKAR jj.) 
Sanctirm to pro.ecu!•-Sub·Tn.•wctor of Polic•-Trial 
fer offence 
in coutBe of dutie.9-Evid•nce in counter case, 
i.J ca·n. be 
where .!anction i8 nece3.•ary-
Oode of Criminal Procedure, 1898 
(Act V of 1898), '8. 127-132, 
197.-Mysore Police Act, 1908 (5 of 1908), "'· 4 (c), 8, 26 (1) 
and 
(3). 
The appellant, a Sub-Tn•pertor of Police in Mysore State, 
was committed to Ses111ion3 Court for trial on the complaint of 
K. K alleged that the appellant and an<Jther 
person had 
severely beaten T, and that the appellant, when forcibly taking 
away T, and reques•ed by K to excuse T, wantonly fired on 
two persons. 
The appellant's case, on which his counter 
case is based, is that while hr. and a constable, after arresting, 
were taking T to the Pnlice Station, 20 or 30 persons attacked 
them and rescued T. Not heeding to appellant's advice to 
desist from voilence. the crowed asked him to wait till K came. 
On appellant's refu<a\, the crowd threatened.Just then K came. 
Apprehending danRer to their lives. the appellant first fired in 
the air, but when the people pelted stones and grappled him. 
two shots wrnt off injuring two persons. K suatched his 
revolver and two mazahars prepared by the appellant in T's 
case, and the people beat him. These persons have at.o been 
committed to the Sesions Court for trial. The Sesions Judge 
made the reference for qua<hing the commitment of the 
appellant, holding that the Magistrate could not have taken 
cognizance of the offences without the sanction of the State 
ia view of the 
of ss. 132 and 197 Code 
of Criminal Procedure. The High Court reject•d the reference 
of the Sessions Judge for qnashing the commitment 
order. 
On appeal by special leave, the appellant contended that (l) 
the appellant could be clismissed by the State Gr.vernment alor1e 
and, therefore, sanction under s. 197 Code of Ori minal Proce-
was necessa;y ; (2) a police offic•r cannot be prosecuted 
without a sanction for an offence which the police officer 
alleges took place in course of his duty ; (3) when a case and 
1963 
May I. 
J{a1r•j 
v. 
Stot1 of Mys''' 
672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] Voi... 
a counter case are both committed to SeSifons Court, it should 
be inferred that the appe1lant has prima 
established his 
versio':1 of the incident and that his rroducing a copy of the 
commllt•l order in the counter ca•e is sufficient for holding 
that sanction under s. 132 Code of Criminal Procedure was 
necessary, and (4) it is not necessary for the police officer 
to prove <"onclusively that he was dispersing an unlawfuil 
assembly before he can raise the plea of want of sanction. 
Heid that(!) in view of the provisions of ss. 4 (C), 8 
and sub-ss. (I) & (3) of s. 26 of the Mysore Police Act, the 
Inspector-General of Police can dismiss Sub-Inspector and 
therefore, no sanction of the State Government for prosecution 
of tho appellant was necessary even if he had committed the 
offences alleged while acting or purporting to act in discharge 
of his offiicial duty ; 
(2) the court can consider the necc91ity of sanction only 
when from the evidence recorded in the proceedings or the 
circumstances of the case it be possible to hold either definitely 
that the allel!ed offe1tce was committed or was probably com· 
mitted in connection with action under ss. 127 and 128 of the 
('.ode. tr at any stage of the proceedings it appears to the 
court that the action of the police officer complained of comes 
within the provisions of ss. 127 and 128 of the Code, the 
court should hold that •anc!ion was necessary. The jurisdic-
tion of the court to proceed with the complaint emanates from 
the allegations made in the complaint and not from what i1 
alleged by the accused or what is finally established in the case 
as a result of the evidence recorded. 
Mojajoj Dobey v. H. 0. Bhari, (1955] 2 S. C.R. 925, 
referred to. 
(3) in the present case it docs not appear from the record 
that the evidence prima facie establishes the appellant's conten-
tion that he could not be prosecuted without the sanction of 
the Government. This questfon is to be decided on the evi-
dence in this case and not on the basis of evidence and inferences 
drawn in the other case ; 
(4) in order that the appellant can get the 
of 
provi•ions of s. 132 of the Code, he has to establish that (t) 
there was an unlawful assembly 
likely

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.