JUDGMENT : Narasimham, C.J. - These two revisions are dealt with in one judgment as they arise out of one order passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Angul. 2. In Angul town there was some dispute between one Ratnakar Naik who claimed to be the owner of a house and his tenant Rasanand Sahu. At about 12 noon of the 31st July 1957, Rasanand Sahu lodged a station diary entry (No. 684) at the Angul Police Station alleging that on account of some dispute his landlord Ratnakar was attempting to forcibly evict him from his house. The local police, after recording the station diary entry asked him to seek the help of the Civil Court and also gave him a warning not to commit any breach of peace. Fifteen minutes latter, Ratnakar Naik also came to the police station and lodged another station diary entry (No. 685) alleging that his tenant, Rasanand Sahu, was heavily in arrears of rent and that he (the informant) suspected that on account of the dispute between the two, Rasananda himself set fire to the house a few days before, thereby causing him heavy loss. The police had already registered a case u/s 436 Indian Penal Code. Hence, after recording the station diary entry, he was also asked by the police to seek his redress in the civil court and not to commit breach of peace. 3. On the 1st of August 1937 occurred several incidents between the Angul police and Ratnakar Naik and his men which are the subject matter of controversy in these two revision petitions. At about 8-15 A.M. Ratnakar appeared at the police station and stated that though he wanted to repair his house which had been damaged by fire, his tenant Rasananda would not allow him to do so. He also informed the police that he had filed a civil suit against Rasananda as early as the 22nd July 1957. The police therefore told him that as Rasananda was in possession and as Ratnakar had already filed a civil suit he should await the result of that suit and should not attempt to take forcible possession and thereby commit breach of peace. The police therefore told him that as Rasananda was in possession and as Ratnakar had already filed a civil suit he should await the result of that suit and should not attempt to take forcible possession and thereby commit breach of peace. At about 9.10 A.M. one Sanatan Sahu who is said to be a subtenant of Rasananda came to the police station and reported that Ratnakar was attempting to take forcible possession with the help of some goondas and that there was a likelihood of breach of peace. The officer in charge of Angul police station then sent some constables to the spot and at about 9-20 A.M. he also went there as he heard some noise coming from that direction. The disputed house is said to be close to Angul Post office and also to the police station. The court of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Angul, is also nearby and from the report of the Munsif-Magistrate, Angul, I find that all these buildings are within a distance of one or two furlong from one another. The officer-in-charge immediately instituted a case under Sections 451, 452, 426 and 323 Indian Penal Code against four persons, namely, Ratnakar Naik, Rajani Pradhan, Purna Chandra Dolbehera and Lakshmidhar Jena on the information given by Sanatan Sahu. At first a plain paper F.I.R. was drawn up at the spot and then a regular F.I.R. was drawn up at the police station at 11-35 A.M. The substance of the allegations made in that F.I.R. was that Ratnakar with his helpers made a forcible entry into the house in the occupation of Sanatan Sahu and also caused hurt to some of the inmates of the house. The police party arrested three of the accused persons, namely Ratnakar Naik, Purna Chandra Dolbehera and Rajani Pradhan at the spot, handcuffed them, tied them with ropes, and marched them to the police station at about 11-35 A.M. They were kept in the Thana lock-up for the whole of that night and were produced before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Angul, on the 2nd August 1957 at about 4 P.M. It appears that they were actually brought to the court premises in the morning of the 2nd August, but there was some delay in their production before the Magistrate. As soon as they were brought before the Magistrate, Ratnakar complained about ill-treatment by police while he was in the Thana lock-up, on the previous night. He alleged that at about 8 P.M. on the 1st August when he and other arrested persons were about to take food, the Circle Inspector of police asked them to wait until the officer-in-charge came and that thereby he prevented them from taking food till about 11-30 P.M. (sic) midnight. He further alleged that on the 2nd of August also he had no food at all except some tea and tifin. Puma Chandra Dolbehera who is a carpenter by profession made serious allegations to the effect that at the Thana, the Circle Inspector and the officer-in-charge, after some discussion, suggested to him that if he would give a bribe he would be released saying that the other party was willing to give a bribe. He made an offer of Rs. 12/- only but the Circle Inspector said that this sum was too low, having regard to the offer made by the other party. But Purna expressed his inability to pay so much money. He further alleged that late in the night of the 1st August he was brought before the officer-in-charge who assaulted him with a stick, but without leaving any visible marks of injury. He complained of pain on his chest and back on account of that assault. The learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, after noting down briefly the complaints of Ratnakar and Purna in the order sheet, directed Sri J.N. Acharya, Munsif-Magistrate of Angul to make thorough enquiry and report. The Munsif-Magistrate, after examining nine witnesses reported that a prima facie case was made out against the Circle Inspector and the officer-in-charge of Angul police station. He did not specify in his report the offences which were made out prima facie. The Sub-divisional Magistrate, thereafter, re-examined the entire evidence collected by the Munsif-Magistrate and other papers and thought that an offence u/s 166, Indian Penal Code was made out against the Circle Inspector, Sri Raghunath Padhy, for having prevented the arrested persons from taking food at 8 P.M. on the 1st August, 1957. He thought that the other allegations against the two police officers, namely demand of bribe and assault, were not proved. 4. He thought that the other allegations against the two police officers, namely demand of bribe and assault, were not proved. 4. Sri Raghunath Padhy, Circle Inspector filed Criminal Revision No. 246 of 1957 against that portion of the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Angul which directed the issue of summons against him u/s 166, Indian Penal Code and prayed that the entire proceeding against him be quashed. Purna Chandra Dolbehera filed Criminal Revision No. 101 of 1958, against that portion of the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate which dismissed his complaint of assault and demand of bribe by the two police officer's during the period he was in police custody. It appears that he had also filed a criminal revision before the Sessions Judge of Cuttack against the order-of the Sub-divisional Magistrate dismissing his complaint, but the learned Sessions Judge refused to interfere. 5. In these two revisions therefore the main question for consideration is whether the order dated the 4th September, 1957 passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Augul, summoning Sri Raghunath Padhy u/s 166, Indian Penal Code and dismissing the complaint of Puma Chandra Dolbehera regarding the demand for bribe made on him by the police officers, was justified. 6. So far as the charge u/s 166, Indian Penal Code is concerned I do not think the Sub-divisional Magistrate was justified in issuing process against the Circle Inspector Sri Raghunath Padhy. Whenever under-trial prisoners are detained in the police lock up, the primary responsibility for giving them proper food and looking after them is on the officer in-charge. It is admitted that at about 8 P.M. when these persons were about to take their food the officer-in-charge was not there. Hence, if the Circle Inspector asked them not to take food but to wait till the arrival of the officer-in-charge, it cannot be said that he committed an offence u/s 166, Indian Penal Code. It is true that on account of his interference, the unfortunate under-trial prisoners were not able to take food till about 11-30 P.M. or 12 midnight. But by merely asking them not to touch any food until the person directly responsible for the feeding of the under-trial prisoners, namely the officer-in-charge, arrived there, the Circle Inspector was presumably taking the usual precaution so that there may not be any complained about the quality of food, etc. But by merely asking them not to touch any food until the person directly responsible for the feeding of the under-trial prisoners, namely the officer-in-charge, arrived there, the Circle Inspector was presumably taking the usual precaution so that there may not be any complained about the quality of food, etc. In my opinion, Section 166, Indian Penal Code has absolutely no application to this case and the proceeding started against the Circle Inspector under that section should be quashed. 7. The main allegations are: (i) The demand of bribe by the Circle Inspector and the officer-in-charge, from Purna Chandra Dolbehera; and (ii) The assault on him by the officer-in-charge late in the night of the 1st August, 1957. Regarding these two allegations there is undoubtedly no direct evidence except that of the victim. viz., Purna Chandra Dolbehera himself. But as both these incidents took place inside the lock-up after night-fall, it is futile to expect independent eye witnesses. Moreover, as regards the assault, it was said to have been made in such a way as not to leave any visible marks of injury on the victim and there would be no medical evidence to corroborate the statement of the victim. When Purna was examined medically on the 3rd August, 1957, under the orders of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, he was found to have abrasions on his right and left knee caused by rubbing against hard surface, but there was no other visible injury to support his statement about the assault made on him with a stick. 8. The main question therefore is whether in the circumstances of this case, on the mere oral statement of Purna Chandra Dolbehera, two prominent officers of the Police Department, namely Sri Raghunath Padhy (Circle Inspector) and Sri Dhirendranath Kar (officer-in-charge of Angul Police Station) should be placed on trial for (i) demanding bribe (Section 161, Indian Penal Code) and (ii) assaulting an under-trial prisoner while in police custody (Section 352, Indian Penal Code). The Munsif-Magistrate who held a preliminary enquiry is of opinion that a prima facie case was made out but the Sub-divisional Magistrate has differed from him. 9. The Munsif-Magistrate who held a preliminary enquiry is of opinion that a prima facie case was made out but the Sub-divisional Magistrate has differed from him. 9. It was urged on behalf of the police officers that an under-trial prisoner in police custody is necessarily annoyed with the police on account of his detention and is likely to make any wild accusation against the police officers as soon as he is brought before a Magistrate and that, on his uncorroborated testimony, it will not be proper to put the officers on trial. But at the same time it should be remembered that when an under trial prisoner is in police lock-up he is at the mercy of the police officers-in-charge and if corroboration is always required for belief or otherwise of his allegation as to what happened to him while in police custody, even genuine cases of ill-treatment by the police may go unpunished. If independent corroboration is always insisted upon, it would be tantamount to encouraging police officers to ill-treat under-trial prisoners so long as no visible mark of injury is left. It is well known that there are several methods of causing pain to an under-trial prisoner either for the purpose of extracting a confession or compelling him to give a bribe, or for any other reason, without leaving any visible mark of injury. The Court cannot, therefore, lay down an invariable rule of prudence to the effect that no allegation by any under-trial prisoner about ill-treatment during police custody should be believed unless it is corroborated by independent evidence. 10. In the present case there are some circumstances which, I think, are sufficient to show that a prima facie case is made out for placing the two police officers on trial. The victim Purna Chandra Dolbehera immediately complained about the demand of bribe and assault on him by the officers, to his master Ratnakar Naik (p.w. 1) who was also then an under-trial prisoner. As soon as he was produced before the Magistrate on the 2nd August, he made his complaint doubtless orally to the Sub-divisional Magistrate who recorded it in the order-sheet on that date. There was hardly any time for this person to consult cleverer brains and concoct a false case against the police. As soon as he was produced before the Magistrate on the 2nd August, he made his complaint doubtless orally to the Sub-divisional Magistrate who recorded it in the order-sheet on that date. There was hardly any time for this person to consult cleverer brains and concoct a false case against the police. Purna Chandra Dolbehera is a carpenter by profession who had been engaged by the house-owner, Ratnakar, to repair his house on the 1st August, 1957. It was indeed unfortunate that he should have been arrested by the police and taken in custody and detained in the Thana lock-up. He had no previous grudge against the police. 11. The conduct of the two police officers in connection with the investigation of the case against Ratnakar and Purna Chandra Dolbehera definitely betrays unusual zeal against them. The station diary entries of the 31st July, 1957 doubtless show that till then the police were impartial in the dispute between Ratnakar and Rasanand and advised both parties to seek redress in the civil Court and warned them not to commit breach of peace. But in the morning of the 1st August they became definitely antagonistic towards Ratnakar and his men. Ratnakar is a fairly respectable person of Angul town owning a house. Purna Chandra Dolbehera, as already pointed out, is a carpenter. These two persons were handcuffed, tied with a rope and marched to the police station. The Sub-divisional Magistrate thought that handcuffing was necessary to prevent their escape. But the evidence collected during the preliminary enquiry by the Munsif-Magistrate, does not support this view. These two persons were not common criminals likely to run away unless handcuffed and tied with a rope. Apart from their respectability there is the positive testimony of a cycle-repairer of Angul one Saroj Kumar Behera, and another carpenter, Ramesh Chandra Dol Behera, to corroborate the evidence of the victims to the effect that these persons made no attempt to escape when they were taken into police custody. In view of this statement and the status of these persons, it appears to me, prima facie, that the conduct of the police officers in handcuffing them, tying them with a rope and marching them to the police station, was not at all justified and was done presumably with a view to humiliate them and also to create fear in them. 12. 12. The case diary shows that the arrest of these people took place at about 9.30 a.m. to 10 a.m. on the 1st August which was a working day. The court-room of the Sub-divisional Magistrate was within a distance of two furlongs from the place of arrest. The allegations against them were also not of such a serious nature (like dacoity or murder) as to justify their being kept in the Thana lock-up for sometime with a view to facilitate investigation. This was a simple case of dispute between the landlord of a house and his tenant. Even if the police thought that a cognizable case u/s 451, Indian Penal Code was made out one would expect them to produce them before the Magistrate on that very day. It is true that Section 61, Code of Criminal Procedure authorises the police to detain an under trial prisoner for twenty-four hours after his arrest, but that is the maximum period of detention without the orders of the Magistrate and it is not necessary that in every cognizable case the police should, as an in variable rule, keep the arrested person in detention for twenty-four hours and then produce him before the Magistrate. Section 60, Code of Criminal Procedure definitely says that, a police officer while making an arrest without warrant shall, without unnecessary delay send the person arrested to the Magistrate concerned. Section 61 further lays down that the detention at police custody should not be for a longer period than, under all the circumstances of the case, is reasonable. Considering the status for the arrested persons, the nature of the allegations made against them, the time and place of the arrest, and the proximity of the Magistrate's Court to the place of the arrest, must hold, prima facie, that the police officers were not justified in taking them to the Thana lock-up but should have produced them before the Magistrate on the 1st August itself. Even if they thought of taking them to the thana for the purpose of drawing up a regular F.I.R. in the printed form, which was said to have been done at about 11-30 a.m. that day, they should have brought them before the Magistrate, before the Court rose for that day. 13. It is in this context that the testimony of Sri Gagan Behari Das, an Advocate of Angul Bar, becomes very significant. 13. It is in this context that the testimony of Sri Gagan Behari Das, an Advocate of Angul Bar, becomes very significant. He was Ratnakar's Advocate in the civil suit. As soon as Ratnakar and Purna Chandra Dolbehera were arrested by the police, Purna's father Dhani Dolbehera, alias Dhania, ran to Gagan Babu and informed him about the arrest. Thereupon Gagan babu through his clerk, gave the Vakalatnamas to Dhani for the purpose of obtaining the signatures of Ratnakar so as to enable him to move for his bail before the Magistrate. Dhani's statement is to the effect that he went with the Vakalatnamas to the police officer at about 11 a.m. or 12 noon and requested him to allow Ratnakar to sign the Vakalatnama but the police officer refused. He could do nothing else but report his failure to Gagan Babu sometime between 2 p.m. and 3 p.m. on that day, while the latter was waiting for him in the court-premises of the Sub. divisional Magistrate. Gagan Babu then met the Magistrate at about 3 or 3-30 p. m., informed him about the conduct of the police in refusing to permit Ratnakar to sign the Vakalatnama so as to enable his advocate to move for his bail, and then filed a petition for bail without the necessary Vakalatnama (Ext. 1). On that petition, the Sub-divisional Magistrate, at about 5-40 p m. asked the officer-in-charge of Angul police station for a report and further noted: It is a fact that the accused has been arrested this morning, what has prevented the police from producing him before me to-day The report of the officer-in-charge to the Sub-divisional Magistrate is stated to have been made at 7 p.m. on that day. But the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate on that report was made at 9-30 p.m. and it is to the following effect: It is rather late in the evening to-day to pass any orders on the petition which, read with the police report, appears to be a little complicated. I shall pass orders to-morrow in the Court. Thus, the police succeeded in keeping the arrested persons in the Thana lock-up during the night of the 1st and 2nd August 1957. I shall pass orders to-morrow in the Court. Thus, the police succeeded in keeping the arrested persons in the Thana lock-up during the night of the 1st and 2nd August 1957. 14.The leisurely way in which a petition involving the liberty of a subject was dealt with by the Sub-divisional Magistrate and the officer in charge of Angul police station is indeed deplorable. Apparently, the police officer overlooked the provisions of Clause (1) of Article 22 of the Constitution which says that no person detained in custody shall be denied the right to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice. Hence when Dhani sought the permission of the police officer to obtain the signature of Ratnakar on the Vakalatnama in the morning of the 1st August, 1957, the police officer should have immediately given the necessary facility. Again, when at about 3-30 p.m. that day, Gagan Babu complained to the Magistrate about the obstructive tactics of the police in preventing the arrested persons from signing the Vakalatnama and filed a petition (Ext. 1) to that effect the Sub-divisional Magistrate should have acted very promptly. The police station was within a distance of two furlongs from "his office and he had also been told that the arrested persons were kept in the Thana lock-up. He could easily have sent for t e officer-in-charge at once, found out the circumstances under which the persons were detained in custody and passed orders for their bail. Instead of taking such prompt action, he merely called for a report from the officer-in-charge who gave it at 7 p.m. and it reached the Sub-divisional Magistrate only at about 9-30 p.m. by which time it became too late. H the Sub-divisional Magistrate had acted promptly on receipt of the complaint from Gagan Babu, the under-trial prisoners would have been granted bail on the 1st evening itself and there would have been no opportunity for the police to ill-treat them in the lock-up that night. 15. H the Sub-divisional Magistrate had acted promptly on receipt of the complaint from Gagan Babu, the under-trial prisoners would have been granted bail on the 1st evening itself and there would have been no opportunity for the police to ill-treat them in the lock-up that night. 15. Having carefully scrutinised the statements of witnesses examined by the Munsif-Magistrate during preliminary enquiry, the case diary, and the records in G.R. case No. 131/517 of 1957 started against Ratnakar and others, I think a prima facie case is made out against the two police officers, namely the Circle Inspector and the officer-in-charge of Angul police station for having demanded bribe from Puma Chandra Dolbehera while he was in the Thana lock-up and against the officer-in-charge for having assaulted him while he was in the lock-up. 16. The learned Sub-divisional Magistrate has made much of a discrepancy in the statement of Purna Chandra Dolbehera as to who actually demanded the bribe. In his earliest statement before the Sub-divisional Magistrate dated the 2nd August 1957, he stated that the Circle Inspector and the officer-in-charge discussed something between themselves and then the Circle Inspector demanded bribe from him. In this statement during the preliminary enquiry by the Munsif, he said that the officer-in-charge after consulting the Circle Inspector demanded bribe. For the purpose of a prima facie case this discrepancy is not material. Whether the Circle Inspector himself demanded a bribe or whether it was demanded by the officer-in-charge in the presence of the Circle Inspector and after consulting him, would not make any difference. 17. As regards the allegation of assault, the main reason given by the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate for disbelieving Purna Chandra Dolbehera was that the medical evidence showed Rome old injury on his knee whereas according to him he was beaten in such a way as not to leave any visible mark or injury though he felt pain on his chest and back. In his deposition before the Munsif/Magistrate, Puma Chandra Dolbehera stated that he was assaulted on his knee and back. On the 2nd August, 1957 he definitely stated before the Sub-divisional Magistrate that there was no visible mark of injury as a result of the assault made on him by the police though he was feeling some pain on his chest and back. On the 2nd August, 1957 he definitely stated before the Sub-divisional Magistrate that there was no visible mark of injury as a result of the assault made on him by the police though he was feeling some pain on his chest and back. The Sub-divisional Magistrate has also written on the order-sheet that he could not personally notice carry injury mark. Purna was not given an opportunity to explain how he received an injury on the knee as noticed by the Medical officer and to reconcile the discrepancies between his statement to the Sub-divisional Magistrate on the 2nd August, 1959 and his subsequent statement before the Munsif-Magistrate during the preliminary enquiry on the 14th August, 1937. 18. I would, therefore, quashing the proceeding u/s 166, Indian Penal Code started by the Sub-divisional Magistrate against the Circle Inspector, Sri Raghunath Padhy, direct that he and the officer-in-charge of Angul police station, Sri Dhirendranath Kar, should be placed on trial for an offence u/s 161, Indian Penal Code. The officer-in-charge, Angul police station, Sri Dhirendranath Kar, may also be placed on trial for an offence u/s 352, Indian Penal Code. It is not clear whether the Circle Inspector instigated the assault on Purna Chandra Dolbehera. Nor can it be said that the assault was made with a view to comply him to give bribe so as to bring the case within the scope of Section 330, Indian Penal Code. It is however open to the trying Magistrate while framing charges, to apply the appropriate sections of the Penal Code on the basis of the evidence adduced before him. I should also emphasis that the observation made in this judgment are based on the material available before this Court for the purpose of deciding whether there is a prima facie case for placing the police officers on trial. They are not binding on the Magistrate who may eventually try the case and his findings should be based on the evidence adduced before him and not on the observations contained in this judgment. 19. The revision petitions are allowed. Final Result : Allowed