Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 243 (AP)

Reddy Srinivasa Rao v. State Of A. P.

2000-03-29

VAMAN RAO

body2000
VAMAN RAO, J. ( 1 ) BOTH sides agree for taking up the criminal Petition for hearing. ( 2 ) THIS petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. seeks quashing of proceedings in C. C. No. 38 of 1999 on the file of the Judicial First Class magistrate, Amudalavalasa in which the petitioner is accused of offences under sections 341, 323, 506 (2), 500 read with section 511, IPC. The facts as narrated in the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent herein may be noticed briefly: on 16-1-1999 some persons were taken to the Police Station in connection with some allegations against them. The complainant came to know about the alleged illegal detention of those persons namely Mamidi srinivas Rao and others. According to the complainant those persons were innocent and were falsely implicated. Earlier, the complainant telephoned to the concerned police Officer at the police station to secure release of the said persons, as there was no response to his telephone call the complainant went to the police station. The accused, who is the Sub-Inspector of Police, was present in the police station. On seeing the arrival of the complainant he became enraged and started shouting at the complainant with an intention to cause harm to the reputation of the complainant in the public view. It is stated that the accused- officer without receiving the representation of the complainant scolded the workers of the Congress party who were said to have been detained. In the meanwhile some persdns gathered at the police station hearing the shouting of the accused. On seeing this, the complainant went out of the police station and requested them to stay outside. It appears that the accused took some photographs with his camera and forcibly took the complainant inside the police station and scolded and insulted him using defamatory language and wrongfully confined him for more than two hours. In the meanwhile, the gathering outside demanded the release of the complainant and others detained in the police station. Seeing this, the accused pushed the complainant resulting in injuries on his back and his right hand ring finger. It is alleged that the complainant was also beaten by the accused with his hand stick. In the meanwhile, the gathering outside demanded the release of the complainant and others detained in the police station. Seeing this, the accused pushed the complainant resulting in injuries on his back and his right hand ring finger. It is alleged that the complainant was also beaten by the accused with his hand stick. ( 3 ) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the incident is alleged to have occurred within the premises of police station where the petitioner- accused was engaged in his official duties and as such the prosecution, without sanction of the competent authorities, is barred under Section 197, Cr. P. C. The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, is that though the incident occurred in the police station where the petitioner-accused might have been attending to some official work but abusing the complainant and pushing him and beating him with a stick are no part of the duties of the accused and as such the protection under Section 197, Cr. P. C. is not available to the acts alleged against the petitioner by the complainant in this case. ( 4 ) IN support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks to rely on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of N. K. Ogle vs. Sanwaaldas @ sanwalmal Ahuja. The facts of the case before the Supreme Court go to show that the accused who was Tahasildar was accused of theft punishable under Section 379, IPC. The circumstances relating to that charge were that the District Collector had ordered under a Revenue Collection Certificate to collect lease money amounting to Rs. 4,653-00 from the complainant. On receiving this notice the accused-Tahasildar got the demand notice served on the complainant and later an order of attachment was passed. The complainant protested against the attachment of the scooter for the realisation of the money covered under the demand certificate. It is under these circumstances that the said complainant filed the complaint against the tahasildar making an allegation of an offence of theft in respect of the said scooter. Under these circumstances, the Supreme court held that the acts attributed to the tahasildar were committed in discharge of his official duty. It is under these circumstances that the said complainant filed the complaint against the tahasildar making an allegation of an offence of theft in respect of the said scooter. Under these circumstances, the Supreme court held that the acts attributed to the tahasildar were committed in discharge of his official duty. This is obviously on the ground that it was a part of the duty of the tahasildar to attach the property of the complainant for realising the amount covered by the Revenue Demand Certificate issued by the District Collector. ( 5 ) IN this case, the acts attributed to the accused-S. I. of Police are (1) thathe vulgarly and provokingly abused the complainant in the presence of others (2) that he wrongfully detained the complainant for two hours in the police station, and (3) he pushed the complainant resulting in injuries and that he also beat the complainant with a stick resulting in injuries. These acts attributed to the complainant and which are said to be the foundation for criminal prosecution against the accused cannot be said to have any nexus with the duties to be performed by the accused S. I. of Police. Mere contemporaniety of the alleged criminal acts with official duties does not attract the protection under section 197, Cr. P. C. In the case of State of andhra Pradesh vs. N. Venugopal the following observation while dealing with section 53 of the Madras Police Act is worth noting. "so it becomes the task of the Court, whenever any question whether that section applies are not arises, to bestow particular care on its decision. In doing this it has to ascertain first what act is complained of and then to examine if there is any provision of the Police Act, or other law conferring powers on the police under which it may be said to have been done or intended to be done. The Court has to remember in this connection that an act is not under a provision of law merely because the point of time at which it is done coincides with the point of time when some act is done in the exercise of the powers granted by the provision or in performance of the duty imposed by it. The Court has to remember in this connection that an act is not under a provision of law merely because the point of time at which it is done coincides with the point of time when some act is done in the exercise of the powers granted by the provision or in performance of the duty imposed by it. To be able to say that an act is done under a provision of law, one must discover the existence of a reasonable relationship between the provision and the Act. In the absence of such a relation the act cannot be said to be done under the particular provision of law". Applying this decision to the facts of this case, it is obvious that the allegation against the petitioner-accused that he abused the complainant, wrongfully detained the complainant and that he caused hurt to the complainant cannot be said to have any relationship with the official functions or duties of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, it has to be held that taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioner by the Judicial First Class magistrate, Amudalavalasa cannot be said to be bad for want of sanction under section 197 Cr. P. C. It is, however, open to the petitioner to take such defence as is available to him during the trial. ( 6 ) UNDER these circumstances, this petition is dismissed.