Research › Browse › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

1974 DIGILAW 269 (KAR)

GYANOBA v. NANAYYA

1974-11-29

NORONHA

body1974
( 1 ) ONE Gyanoba filed a private complaint, obviously under Sec. 200, crpc (1898), against Sri Naniah, S. I. of Police, Police Station House, bidar Town, alleging offences against him under Ss. 330 and 504 IPC. After recording the sworn statement of the complainant the case was taken on file as Crl Case 521/3 of 1973 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidar process was next issued to the accused under S. 204 Crpc. The accused appeared in person and also by Counsel. ( 2 ) THE learned Magistrate heard the arguments on both sides and ultimately held that in view of the bar of S. 170 of the Mysore (Karnataka) police Act, 1963, the complaint stands dismissed, as no sanction had been obtained from the Govt to lodge the prosecution. It is against this order that the complainant has come up in this Criminal Revision Petition it is necessary in order to understand the back-ground, to set out the recitals in the complaint, fairly in extenso. It is alleged that the complainant (petitioner) while coming from the house of the PWD Supervisor, one Bhima Rao, described as an unsocial element, caught hold of him near the Town Police Stn, Bidar, on 24-5-73 at about 8 a. m. Bhima Rao began to demand, without any reason, gold and money from the complainant The complainant denied that he had taken any gold and money from Bhima Rao meanwhile, two constables came and the complainant was taken to the police Station. The S I. of Police there, namely the accused (respondent here), began to assault the complainant with a stick for the purposes of extorting from the complainant a confession that ha had taken money and gold from Bhima Rao. The accused assaulted the complainant with his hands also and tortured him in the Police Station, resulting in several injuries on his person. He (complainant) went to the Civil Hospital. Bidar. and obtained a medical certificate. It is attached to the complaint. It is further alleged that the accused abused the complainant by taking the names of his wife and mother. ( 3 ) THE learned Magistrate has referred to some decisions of this Court, and also to a ruling of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Atmaram, AIR. 1966 SC. 1786. It is attached to the complaint. It is further alleged that the accused abused the complainant by taking the names of his wife and mother. ( 3 ) THE learned Magistrate has referred to some decisions of this Court, and also to a ruling of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Atmaram, AIR. 1966 SC. 1786. He does not appear to have properly applied his mind to the 'ratio' of the Supreme Court ruling, above referred to, and which has been followed by this Court in Govindaraju v. Babu Poojary, 1973 (1) Myslj. 94. In Govindaraju's case (2), the previous decisions of this Court viz. , State of Mysore v. Manikyam, 1968 (2) Myslj. 11, and State of Mysore v. Satyendra Kumar, 1972 (1) Myslj. 637 , and also one unreported decision in Kalyanaprasad v. Radhakrishna, Crrp. 257/69, have been referred to. ( 4 ) IT is observed in Govindaraju's case (2) at page 96, that the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Atmaram (1), had not been brought to the notice of this Court, and in the three previous decisions these rulings (all of a single Bench) do not seem to be in conformity with the above said decision of the Supreme Court. The learned Magistrate was not therefore justified, in placing dependence on those three decisions. ( 5 ) AFTER reference to the rulings of the Supreme Court in State of A. P. v. Venugopal, AIR. 1954 SC. 33, and of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in narayan Hari v. Yeshwant Raoji, AIR, 1928 Bom, 352, it is stated in the case of Govindaraju (2):"the provisions of Ss. 161 and 163 of the Crpc emphasize the fact that a Police Officer is prohibited from beating or confining persons with a view to induce them to make statement. In view of the statutory prohibition it cannot possibly, be said that the acts complained of, in this case, are acts done by the respondents under the colour of their duty or authority. In our opinion, there is no connection in, this case between the acts complained cf and the office of the respondents and duties and obligations imposed on them by law. In our opinion, there is no connection in, this case between the acts complained cf and the office of the respondents and duties and obligations imposed on them by law. OB the other hand, the alleged acts fall completely outside the scope of the duties of thr respondents and they are not entitled therefore to the mantle of protection conferred by S 181 (1) o,f thei Bombay Police Act their Lordships of the Suprtme Court have pointed out that the provisions of Ss 161 and 163 Crpc emphasize the fact that the police Officer is prohibited from beating or confining persons with a view to induce them to make statements In view of this statutory prohibition it cannot therefore, be said that the acts complained cf by the complainant were acts done by the accused under the colour of his duty or authority and that the alleged acts of beating and confinement fall completely outside the scope of duties of the Police Officer and the accused is therefore no entitled to the mantle of protection conferred by S 170 (1) of the Mysore Police Act, 1963. " ( 6 ) IT may, incidentally, be mentioned that S 161 (1) of the Bombay Police act is in pari moteria with S. 170 (1) of the Mysore (Katnataka) Police Act as represented by Sri M. M. Jagirdar petitioner's learned Advocate, the ruling in Govindaraju's case (2), applied fully to the facts, of the instant case The learned State Public Prosecutor appearing for the Stata- the accused being a Govt Officer-has been unable to persuade me otherwise. He has laid some stress on the medical certiflcate produced with the complaint which contains several blanks. More and better authentic information will have to be gathered by the production of the accident Register, and possibly by the examination of the Doctor himself, At the present stage, all these aspects do not arise, as they belong to the realm of the trial. We are now concerned only with the averments in the complaint The learned State Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations in the complaint cannot be taken aa true at their face value. Whether they be true or not has to be etablished at the trial, and it is none of our concern at this stage. ( 7 ) IN the result, the impugned order of the Magistrate is set aside. Whether they be true or not has to be etablished at the trial, and it is none of our concern at this stage. ( 7 ) IN the result, the impugned order of the Magistrate is set aside. This revision petition is allowed. The Magistrate will take the cast back on file and proceed with it according to law. --- *** --- .