KULKAMI, J. ( 1 ) CRL. Petition 822/37 by the accused Nos. 1 to 3 and Crl. Petition No. 828/87 by accused nos. 5 and 6 are directed against the order dated 10-07-87 passed by the M. M. IV Court, bangalore City in C. C. 1248/87 (P. C. R no. 42/86) issuing process against the petitioners in both cases for the offences under Sub-section 341 and 324 read with section 34 I. P. C. ( 2 ) THE complainant-respondent No. 1 in the present case filed a private complaint on 19. 12. 86 alleging as under : on the high of 11/12. 06. 85, at 1 a. m. M/s. Chandrashekara, S/o. Munikullaiah, vedamurthy, S/o. Anjanappa, krishnamurthy, S/o. Mallaiah who are some among the members of the Sangha were taken from their house by the S. R. Nagar police, on the pretext of interrogation in a case. The complainant who came to know of it tried in vain for their release in the police station during the night. In the afternoon of 12. 06. 85, the complainant was told that the above said boys would be produced in the court by the police. The police did not produce them as promised. At 4. 30 p. m. on 12. 06. 85 the arrested persons were brought before the court. Accused Nos. 2 - Siriguppe, accused No. 5- Govinda, Accused No. 6- vasantha, Accused No-7- Shamanna, accused No. 8- Viji and Accused No. 9- lakshmanna questioned the complainant in the Magistrate court premises as to why he was following them. They got wild on coming to know that he was arranging for the bail of the members of the Sangha. They also told the complainant that but for his following them, the members of the Sangha would not have been produced before the court on 12. 06. 85, indicating that the complainant was coming in the way of police detaining the boys for a number of days illegally. As it was 4. 45 p. m. by that time, the complainant could not engage a counsel and get the surety to'be offered for the release of the members of the Sangh. The boys were handed over to judicial custody. By them a number of person from S. R. Nagar which is hardly at a distance of 2 furlongs from the court building, assembled there. The boys were handed over to judicial custody. By them a number of person from S. R. Nagar which is hardly at a distance of 2 furlongs from the court building, assembled there. The accused person got infuriated and all of them dragged the complainant to the Ulsoor-Gate police station. The complainant was not allowed to say anything in the police station. The accused, who dragged the complainant into the police station, recovered the wearing apparei of the complainant except the underwear and pushed the complainant in the lock-up. The other police officers who were there were behaving as if they were unconcerned. After pushing the complainant into the lock-up all of them went to the chambers of the first accused and were giving an exaggerated and distorted version about the incidents. It was about 6 p. m. All the accused came near the lock-up. Of them A-7 Shamanna, A-8 Viji, and A-9 lakshmana took the complainant out of the lock-up. A1- Venkatanaik, A2- Siriguppe had lathies, A4- Maridevu had rifle. A2, Al and A4 assaulted the complainant on his head, right and left shoulder. A3- bheemaiah kicked on his back. 15 to A9 assaulted the complainant with their hands indiscriminately. The complainant,being unable to bear the pain, shouted for help which focused the attention of some persons who had gathered outside the police station. They entered the police station. Al- Mr. Venkatanaik threatened the complainant with dire consequences if he were to bring all that transpired, to the knowledge of the court or higher police officers. In a short while after the complainant was assaulted,they sensed that the persons who had gathered would make an issue out of the incident as some of them had told the accused that they would take proper action and left. Therefore, a false complaint was prepared to explain away the injuries sustained by the complainant at the hands of the accused in the police station. The complainant was produced before the medical Officer, Victoria Hospital, bangalore at 10. 40 p. m. accompanied by P. C. 2998 of Ulsoor-Gate police station. The doctor noted the history of the incident as given by the complainant in preference to the version given by the accompanying police constable. On 13. 06. The complainant was produced before the medical Officer, Victoria Hospital, bangalore at 10. 40 p. m. accompanied by P. C. 2998 of Ulsoor-Gate police station. The doctor noted the history of the incident as given by the complainant in preference to the version given by the accompanying police constable. On 13. 06. 85 the complainant was produced before the Metropolitan magistrate, IV court, Bangalore City, When the court questioned the complainant about the ill-treatment in the police station, the complainant narrated the violence perpetrated against the complainant in the police station, the previous evening. The court was pleased to record the statement made by the complainant immediately after the protection from police custody. The court took the complainant to judicial custody with a direction to the Superintendent of the Central Jail, to produce the complainant before the Medical Officer of the Central Prison hospital for examination and treatment. The jail doctor made a mote of the injuries on the person of the complainant and treated him till he left the prison. On his release he gave a complaint to the ACP, Ulsoor gate Division requesting him to take action against the above said accused for the offences that they had committed and ACP took no action against the offenders in bringing them to the book. On 16. 7. 85, complainant gave a petition to the Chief Secretary, Government of karnataka, Bangalore and Secretary, Home department, Govt. of Karnataka, seeking permission to prosecute the said police officers. No action was taken by the government. The complainant approached the Hon'ble High Court, in W. P. 12580/85, praying for a writ of mandamus to direct the government of Karnataka to consider the prayer of the complainant made in the petition. It was disposed of with a direction to the Government to consider the application of the complainant within four days. The Government disposed of the complainant's petition within four days by rejecting it. The complainant preferred W. P. 3457/86 before High Court and it was dismissed. Against the said order W. A. 928/86 was filed and it was filed and it was also dismissed. The complainant filled S. L. P 2423/86 before the Supreme Court and that was also disposed of with a direction that if the police officers have assaulted the petitioner, no question of sanction to prosecute arises. Against the said order W. A. 928/86 was filed and it was filed and it was also dismissed. The complainant filled S. L. P 2423/86 before the Supreme Court and that was also disposed of with a direction that if the police officers have assaulted the petitioner, no question of sanction to prosecute arises. Hence, the complaint has been filed on 19th December, 1986 after the hon'ble Supreme Court disposed of the said petition. ( 3 ) THE Magistrate, after recording the sworn statement of the complainant, issued the process against all these petitioner and others for the offence under Section 341 r/w section 34 I. P. C. ( 4 ) THE petitioner in both cases, being aggrieved by the said issue of process, have approached this Court with these two petitions. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel Nagesh for the petitioners in Cr. P. 822/87 and Sri. Shanba murthy for the petitioners in the other petition submitted that Chandrashekar,' vedarhurthy and Krishnamurthy were prosecuted for the offences under Section 354 and 504 I. P. C in crime No. 209,85 and were apprehended in that connection on 12. 06. 85. According to than, the said three persons requested the court to release them on bail when they were produced before the metropolitan Magistrate, IV Court, bangalore. The said request was opposed by the Prosecutor. The court was of the opinion that the bail could not be granted immediately in the said case. Hence, the accused in the said case were handed over to the escort police for taking them to jail. According to them, at that stage the present respondent No. 1 and his followers started shouting slogans against the Magistrate and prosecutor and were preventing the escort police from taking away the said three persons who had been remanded to judicial custody. According to them, at that stage the situation in the court-hall went out of control and a message was sent to Ulsoor gate police station to rush to the spot and to take stock of the situation. The petitioners in both the petitions were attached to Ulsoor gate P. S. and they rushed to the court-hall with additional force and attempted to pacify the respondent and his followers. The respondent and others did not heed to the advice and instead started started abusing the Presiding Officer and attempted to rush towards him in an aggressive mood. The petitioners in both the petitions were attached to Ulsoor gate P. S. and they rushed to the court-hall with additional force and attempted to pacify the respondent and his followers. The respondent and others did not heed to the advice and instead started started abusing the Presiding Officer and attempted to rush towards him in an aggressive mood. They also prevented the escort police from taking the accused remanded in the case to judicial custody. On a compliant given by escort police a case in Crime No. 56/85 of Ulsoor gate police for offences under Sections 143, 145, 141, 355, 448, 504 read with Section 149 i. P. C. came to be registered against the respondent and his supporters in relation to the above said incident. The respondent resisted arrest in that case. Minimum force was required for his arrest and the same was used. He was, thereafter, put in a Van and taken to the Ulsoor gate police station. At the police station the respondent refused to get down from the van and assaulted P. S. I. Maridavaru who was escorting them. On the complaint given by Maridevaru a case in cr. No. 3571/85 of Ulsoor gate police station was registered against the respondent and another for an offence under Section 353 i. P. C. The police, however, succeeded in taking the respondent to the police station and keeping in safe custody. The Station house Officer sent the respondent to the victoria Hospital, Bangalore for treatment of 3 minor injury which he had sustained on account of the force which the police personnel had to use at the time of arrest. On 123. 6. 85 the respondent and others were sent to court with a remand application seeking their remand to judicial custody in cr. 356/85 of Ulsoor gate police station. The respondent and others were accordingly remanded to judicial custody. As desired by the respondent, the Magistrate directed the jail authorities to subject him for medical examination which was done. On completion of the investigation in Cr. 306/85 of Ulsoor gate police station, charge-sheet came to be submitted before the Metropolitan magistrate IV Court, Bangalore in C. C. 2722/85 on the file of the said court. As desired by the respondent, the Magistrate directed the jail authorities to subject him for medical examination which was done. On completion of the investigation in Cr. 306/85 of Ulsoor gate police station, charge-sheet came to be submitted before the Metropolitan magistrate IV Court, Bangalore in C. C. 2722/85 on the file of the said court. Since the Presiding Officer and the Public prosecutor were cited along with the other members of the bar and litigants as witnesses, the Presiding Officer of the Court desired that he should not try the case and, accordingly, the case came to be transferred to M. M. II Court, Bangalore and the same is pending in C. C. 1371/35 on the file of the said Court ( 6 ) BOTH Sri. C. V. Nagesh and Sri. Shamba-murthy, appearing for the petitioners in both cases, submitted that no offence can be said to have been committed by the petitioners under Section 341 on the strength of the complaint filed by the respondent. According to them the detention of R-1 cannot be said to be unlawful or wrongful. Neatly, they urged that looking to the injuries mentioned in the wound certificate it cannot be said that the petitioners have committed any offence under Section 324. The nature of the injuries, according to them, would at the most constitute an offence under Section 323 and hence they submitted that the process issued under Section 324 cannot be sustained. ( 7 ) SRI. Koti, learned Government Pleader, submitted that he supports the arguments of learned counsel C. V. Nagesh and Shamba- murthy. ( 8 ) THE complaint itself makes it clear that chandrashekara, Munikullaiah and vedamurthy were produced before the court on 12. 6. 85 in connection with some offence and they were remanded to judicial custody. The complaint itself also makes it clear that a number of persons from S. R. Nagar, who had assembled there, began to find fault with the petitioners. It is then the incident took place. It is undisputed that the Ulsoor gate police rushed to the court to bring the situation under control. The material on record goes to show that R-l and other made all attempts to prevent their apprehension by police. It is at that time that one of the escort police gave a complaint against R-l and others in crime no. 356/85. It is undisputed that the Ulsoor gate police rushed to the court to bring the situation under control. The material on record goes to show that R-l and other made all attempts to prevent their apprehension by police. It is at that time that one of the escort police gave a complaint against R-l and others in crime no. 356/85. It is in regard to this crime that r-l and his followers were arrested. The said offences are cognizable offences. Therefore, when a cognizable offence was perpetrated in the presence of police, they have got a right under the Criminal procedure Code as well as the police Act to arrest the said persons. After arrest R-l was taken to the police station. Thereafter, he was produced before the court. Therefore, his apprehension and detention in the police station are only on account of the alleged commission of the offences under Section 353 and other sections. Therefore, the detention of R-l cannot be said to be unlawful or wrongful. Therefore, no offence under Section 341 can be said to have been committed by the petitioners and other police officers under Section 3411. P. C. ( 9 ) THE next contention urged by Sri. Nagesh and Sri. Shambamurthy is that looking to the nature of the injuries, the offence at the most would fall under Section 323. Even, according to the allegations made by the complainant, he was beaten with hands and kicked with legs on non-vital parts. A cyclostyled copy of the wound certificate produced by the complainant himself gives the description of the injuries as under:i) Multiple reddish contusions over the supra and intrascapular region on left side. Appears flat all over. ii) Similar flat reddish contusion all over the supra and intrascapular region on the right side. iii) Reddish linear contusion over right medial surface of Rt- knee (just above) size 1 x iv) Patient complains of tenderness over the (R) waist. "similar ;s the description of the injuries given by the jail doctor also. According to learned Counsel Hanumiah, for C. H. Hanumantharaiah, the sworn statement of the complainant showed that the complainant alleged that he was assaulted by accused Nos. 1 to 3 with lathi and gun. Looking to the nature of the injuries and the description of the injuries given by the doctors, his allegation in the sworn statement that he was assaulted by accused Nos. 1 to 3 with lathi and gun. Looking to the nature of the injuries and the description of the injuries given by the doctors, his allegation in the sworn statement that he was assaulted by accused Nos. l to 3 with gun and lathis becomes very hard to accept. That accused Nos. 1 to 3 assaulted him with clubs and gun is not mentioned in the complaint itself specifically. It has seen the light of the day for the first time in the sworn statement. Therefore, as rightly pointed out,the injuries found on respondent no. 1 are simple injuries and if at all caused in the assault by police personnel, as alleged in the complaint, must have been caused only with the hands and the legs. Therefore, the offence would fall under Section 323 and not under Section 324. Therefore, the process issued under 2. 324 cannot be sustained. ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel Sri. Nagaesh drew my attention to Section 468 Cr. P. C. which reads:" (1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation. (2) The period of limitation shall be - (a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only; (b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year; (c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. (3) For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation in relation to offences which may be tried together shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment. "the offence under Section 341 is punishable with S. I. for one month or fine or rs. 5000/- or both. The offence under section 323 is punishable with imprisonment for one year or fine of Rs. 10000/- or both. Therefore, the maximum imprisonment prescribed for both the offence is one year. Therefore the period of limitation would be one year from the date of offence. The alleged date of offence is 12/13. 6. 85. The complaint has been filed on 19. 12. 86 ie. one year after the commission of the offence. According to learned counsel Sri. Therefore, the maximum imprisonment prescribed for both the offence is one year. Therefore the period of limitation would be one year from the date of offence. The alleged date of offence is 12/13. 6. 85. The complaint has been filed on 19. 12. 86 ie. one year after the commission of the offence. According to learned counsel Sri. Hanumaiah, appearin for. H. Hanuman- thraya, the respondent No. 1 was agitating the matter before the Government, High Court and Supreme Court for permission to proceed against the petitioners. The S. L. P. filed in Supreme Court was disposed of with the observation that if it is a case of assault by police, the question of obtaining sanction from the Government does not arise. Therefore, on the basis of this order, the respondent No. l claims to have filed this complaint and according to learned counsel sr. Hanumaiah this constitutes sufficient ground for condonation of delay. Simply agitating the matter before Government and this Court does not amount to sufficient ground within the meaning of Section 473 for condonation of delay in filing the complaint. Section 473 Cr. P. C. reads :"notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this chapter any Court may take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation, if it is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary to do so in the interest of justice. "no request for condonation of delay was made before the court- below. Even assuming that such a request was not necessary, R- 1's action in approaching the government and this Court and ultimately the Supreme Court are. in my opinion, nothing but an attempt to gain time. Therefore, merely because he was agitating the matter before the Government and in this Court and ultimately in Supreme Court, it cannot be said that it constitutes sufficient grounds to condone the delay. Therefore, the case is clearly barred by time. On this court, the complaint deserves to be dismissed. ( 11 ) THE next question is whether the sanction to prosecute the accused persons is necessary. Therefore, the case is clearly barred by time. On this court, the complaint deserves to be dismissed. ( 11 ) THE next question is whether the sanction to prosecute the accused persons is necessary. The above narration of the incident and the allegations made in the complaint itself go to show that the escort police, it appears, were prevented from doing their duty and were obstructed by R-1 and others from removing the three persons remanded to judicial custody by the magistrate to the jail. It is undisputed that on the strength of the said alleged obstruction and prevention, crime No. 356/85 was registered against respondent No. 1 and others. It is only in that crime that the present R-l was arrested and the material on record go to show that R-l was resisting his arrest in that crime. Section 46 (2) Cr. P. C. reads;" (2) If such person forcibly resists the endeavor to arrest his, or attempts to evade the arrest such police officer or other person may use all means necessary to affect the arrest. "most trivial injuries are caused to him. Therefore, it cannot be said that the police officers used any force more than that was necessary for the apprehension of R-l. Therefore, even if such minor injuries like contusions, abrasions and pain are causes to r-l, it cannot be said that the police people have intentionally caused the said injuries to r-l. The said injuries are caused only in the course of the police officers discharging their duties. At the most it can be said that they acted in excess of their authority. Therefore, under Sub-section 197 Cr/l and 170 of the karnataka Police Act, the sanction to prosecute the accused is necessary. Admittedly, no sanction was accorded and the application seeking permission to prosecute the accused- petitioners was rejected. Therefore, under these circumstance, the private complaint filled by the respondent No. l is liable to be dismissed. ( 12 ) IT is unfortunate that such incidents should take place in the premises of justice itself. If the Judicial Officers are not permitted to discharge their functions without fear, it would be impossible to administer justice to the public. The magistrate had to call the police to bring the situation under control. If such incidents are to take place in the court premises itself, the very administration of Justice would become a laughing stock. If the Judicial Officers are not permitted to discharge their functions without fear, it would be impossible to administer justice to the public. The magistrate had to call the police to bring the situation under control. If such incidents are to take place in the court premises itself, the very administration of Justice would become a laughing stock. The present incident has taken place while the present petitioners and others rushed to the M. M. IV Court on coming to know about the incident taking place in the court premises itself. Therefore, the circumstances in the case show that the police officers used the most minimum force to bring the situation under control. They have no malice, ill-will or animosity against r-1 and his followers. 13. Therefore, under these circumstances, the order passed by the court-below issuing process against the accused persons in P. C. R. 42/86 and C. C. 124/87 is bad at law and hence it is set aside. Both the petitions are allowed. The complaint filed by R-1 is dismissed. Petitions Allowed. --- *** --- .