PUKHRAJ versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

Citation: [1974] 1 S.C.R. 559 · Decided: 29-08-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HANS RAJ KHANNA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
0 
H 
559 
PUKHRAJ 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. 
August 29, 1973 
lR R. KHA~NA AND A. _ALAGIRISWAMI, JJ.J 
Sectio11 197 Cr. P.C;-Sa11etlon-A criminal complaint fil6d l1y o &11bordlnate 
cnip/oyee ogait1.rt his superior alleging 11Se of abusive language and giving kicb. 
The appellant filed a complaint &pilnt respondent No. 2, his superior officer, 
in the Postal Department, under sections 323 and 502 of I.P.C. alleging that 
when 1he appellant went with a certain complaint to the second responden~ the 
second resoondent kicked him in his abdomen and abused him by eaying "Sale, 
gunde, badmaoh ... " The second respondent filed an application under oection 
197 of the Cr.P.C. praying that the Court should not take cognizance of the 
offence without the sanction of the Government, as required by Section 197 
of the Cr.P.C. It was further contended that the alleged acts, if at all done by 
the accused were done while discharging his duties as a public 5ervant. The trial 
~tagistra.te dismissed the application. The High Court allowed 
tho 
revision 
;1 pplkation of second respor:.::lent. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD : ( i) At. this stage, the Court ls concerned only with one point, viz., 
whether on facts alleged in the complaint, it could ·be said that the acts were 
done in purported exercise of his duties. 
Applying the test laid down in the 
decisions of the Federal Court and Supreme Court to acts complained of, viz;., 
kitting the complainant and abusing, cannot be . said to have been done in the 
cpnrse of the performance of the duty by the second respondent. 
(561H] 
(2) The facts subsequently coming to light during the course of the judicial 
enquiry or during the course of the prosecution evidence at the trial may esta~ 
blisb the necessity for sanction. It may be possible for the second 1espondent 
to place the material on record during the course of the trial for showing what 
his duty was and also that ·the acts complained of were so inter·related with his 
ofticial duty, so as to attract the protection afforded by Sec. 197 of the Cr. P.C. 
Whether sanction is necessary or not may have to depend from stage to stage. 
[56201 
Horirarn Singh, [1939] F.C.R. 159, 
Bhagwau Prasad Sriv4flava v. N.' P. 
Mishra, [1971] 1 S.C.R. 317, Mataiog Dobey v. H. C. Bharl [19551 2 S.C.R. 925 
and Sarioo Prasad v. The King Emperor, (1945] F.C.R. 227, relied npon. 
CR1MiNAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 101 of 
1972. 
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and order dated the 
25th February, 1972 of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhour in S. B. 
Criminal Revision No. 52 of 1972. 
B. D. Sharma, S. K .. Bagga, S. Bagga, Rani Arora and Yash Bagga, 
for the a.PPellant. 
S. M. Jain, for respondent No. 1. 
S. N. Prasad, for respondent No. 2. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ALAGill.ISWAMI, J. 
The appellant filed a complaint against the 
2nd respondent before the Addi. Munsiff Magistrate of J.odhpur City 
under ss. 3Z3 and 504 l.P.C. The 2nd respondent was the Post Master 
General. Rajasthan and the appellant a clerk in the Head Post Office 
560 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1974 J 1 s.c.R. 
at Jodhpur. He was also the Divisional Secretary of National Union 
of Postal Employees. The relevant portion of the complaint is 
as 
follows: 
. 
, 
"4. That the accused 
came on tour 
to Jodhpur on 
25-HJ..1971. He arrived at the Head Post Office Jodhpur, in 
connection with the inspection at 5.45 P.M. The com!>' 
lainant reached to submit his representation to the accused 
for cancelling his transfer, when the accnsed just sat in his 
jeep and the complainant started narrating his story. 
"5. That the accused being enraged by this complaint, 
kicked him in his abdomen and abused him by saying "Sale, 
Goonda, Badmash, on one hand · yOll · are OOJ!IPJaining ·and · 
on the other hand you are requesting for the.,.Cimcellation of 
transfer. 
· 
"6. That the complainant became v&y much enraged 
over this incident but he suppressed .his anger because. of 
being responsible citizen and to avoid any further disturbance. 
"1·. That after kicking and abusing the complainant the 
accused ran away in his jeep." 
The 2nd respondent filed . an application under s. 197 of 
the 
Code of Criminal Procedure praying that the court should not take 
oognizance of the offence without the sanction of the Government as 
the acts alleged, if at .all done by the accused, were done while dis-
charging his duties as a. public serv

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