LexPRABHAKAR V. SINARI versus SHANKER ANANT VERLEKAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B _, , c D E F G .. H PRABHAKAR V. SINARI v. SHANKER ANANT VERLEKAR Navember 29, 1968 [J. C. SHAH AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, •· 197-Sanction for prosecution of public servant-Police Officer interfering in dispute over land and ask- ing one party to take possession-Whether act• in discharge of official duty. A private complaint was !!led again•! the appellant who wa. a De- puty Superintendent of Police. According to the statement of the com- plainant there was a dispute between him and certain hawkers who wanted to trespass on his land and at his instance the police wa. in- formed. The appellant came to the spot, threatened and assaulted him, . and suggested to the hawkers to enter upon the land, whereupon the hawkers took possession df the land. The Magistrate after recording the statement of the complainant issued summons to the appellant and others for answering charges under ss.' 149, 341, 342, 352, 500 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code read with s. 34 thereof. The appellant filed a petition for revision under s. 435 Cr. P.C. before the Sessions Judge in which the main point taken was that the l'revious sanction under s. 197 Cr. P.C. required for the prosecution of the appellant had not been ob- tained. The Sessions Judge ordered that the complainant be asked to obtain the required sanction before prosecuting the appellant. But the Judicial Commissioner's Court ordered that the order of the Magistrate issuing the summons be confirmed. In appeal to this Court by special leave, HELD : The language of •· 197 Cr. P.C. clearly is that no court can take cognizance of an offence alleged to have been committed by any nerson belonging to the cate~ories mentioned in the section which would include the appellant when he is accused of an offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the dis- charge of his official duty. In the present case it wa• not clear in what cal'acity the appellant came to the snot. On the basis of the statement of the comnlainant it was not established that he came in the capacity of a police officer. Ordinarily if a per>on is in possession of some pronerty and other per~ons a"e threatenin~ to disnossess him it is no part of the duty of a pohce officer to take sides and decide the dispute in favour of one party or th~ other or to. force one party to give uo possession to the other, even 1f he was satisfied that the party seeking to take po8'ession wa. lawfully entitled .to ~o so. This the police officer could only do if there had been anv direction by a competent court for rendering help in the matter of delivery of possession. [In dismissing the apoeal the Court observed that it would be open to the appell~~t to est.ablish during the course o'f further proceedingo that the requ1S1te sanction under s. 197 must be obtained.] H ;oi;/d f!'ood Math~ms v. State of Wm Bengal, [1955] I S.C.R. 216, King' 7;, ?'f. ~lt. King, 15 I.A. 41, Phanindra Chandra Neol!V \', TM • · · , ata/og Dubey v. H. C. Bhari, [1955) 2 S.C.it 925, 1014 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1969] 2 S.C.R. 934, Amrik Singh v. State of Pepsu, [19551 1 S.C.R. 1302 and Nagra; v. State of Mysore, [1964} 3 S.C.R. 671, referred to. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 152 of 1967. · Appeal by special leaw from the judgment and order dated November 19, 1966 of the Judicial Commissioner Court, Goa, Daman and Diu in Criminal Reference No. 103 of 1966. R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant. The respondent did not appear. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Grover, J. The sole point for decision in this appeal by special leave is whether a complaint which had been filed against the appellant and four other persons by the respondent for various alleged offences could be entertained without· necessary sanction being obtained for the prosecution of the appellant, who at the material time, was the Deputy Superintendent of Police, under s. 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The original complaint is not before us as it has not been included in the appeal record but the allegations contained there- in are given in the judgment of the learned Judicial Cornmis· sioner. The complainant alleged that on March 5, 1966 at about 4 p.m. accused Nos. 2 to 5 who were hawkers by profession and some other persons attempted to trespass on his land in Margao town with the intention of putting up stalls t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.