Judgment K. S. Garewal, J. 1. The Central Bureau of Investigation (for short the C. B. I.) has filed this petition under Sections 397/401 and 482, Cr. P. C. challenging the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-special Judge, Patiala dated March 17, 1999 whereby the respondent was discharged. 2. On the night intervening July 12/13/1994 Sukhpaf Singh Pali, a Press Correspondent, was abducted from Chular Kalan. An inquiry was conducted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate under the orders of Honble the Supreme Court of India. The inquiry revealed that Sukhpal Singh Pali had been abducted by the police. However, the Chief Judicial Magistrate could not pin-point the district to which the police belonged. Case was registered by the C. B. I. under Secs. 120b and 364, IPC and investigated. It was found that Sukhpal Singh Pali had been abducted by ASI Massa Singh, H. C. Baljit Singh, Const. Ram Chand and Canst. Sukhwinder Singh on the night of July 12-13. On July 14 ASI Harminder Singh, HC Malkiat Singh and HC Avtar Singh detained Sukhpal Singh alongwith others at Bahadursinghwala and subjected him to torture during investigation. SSP Jasminder Singh of District Sangrur and DSP Surjit Singh, Commando Bn. , Ladha Kothi, District Sangrur would visit Bahadursinghwala for interrogating the detainees including Sukhpal Singh. 3. It was also found that on July 23, 1994, ASI Harminder Singh and HC Malkiat Singh severely tortured Sukhpal Singh and removed him from Bahadursinghwala in a white van and since then the whereabouts of Sukhpal Singh were not known. The witnesses who confirmed this were L. Nk. Raghubir Singh, Const. S. B. Bishe, SI Brij Bhushan Sharma and others of C. R. P. F. Accordingly the accused were challaned under Sections 364, 342, 343 and 120b. IPC. 4. At the stage of framing of charge it was found that prima facie case under Sections 364, 342, 343 read with Sec.120b. IPC was established against DSP Surjit Singh, ASI Massa Singh. HC Avtar Singh. Const. Sukhwinder Singh, Const. Ram Chand. ASI Harminder Singh, HC Malkiat Singh and HC Baljit Singh but as regards SSP Jasminder Singh, the finding returned by the Trial Court was that there was no prima facie evidence that Sukhpal Singh had been abducted by the accused acting in conspiracy with SSP Jasminder Singh. The only allegation against Jasminder Singh was that he was responsible for illegally detaining Sukhpal Singh. The only allegation against Jasminder Singh was that he was responsible for illegally detaining Sukhpal Singh. The Court further found that there was no evidence on record to establish that SSP Jasminder and Singh had in any way aided the wrongful confinement of Sukhpal Singh as none of the witness had stated that he was the one who had wrongfully confined Sukhpal Singh. They had simply stated that SSP Sangrur would come there. Resultantly. SSP Jasminder Singh was discharged. 5. The C. B. I. has filed this petition challenging the discharge of the respondent and has relied upon the statements of Didar Singh, Raghubir Singh, Brij Bhushan Sharma. S. B. Bishe and Mohd. Abbas to establish that the respondent frequently visit the place of detention of Sukhpal Singh at C. I. A. Staff Bahadursinghwala. which was under his control. 6. In order to test this submission it would be necessary to go through the statements of the witnesses relied upon by the petitioner. Dibar Singh (witness No.36) a detainee at the detention centre described that on July 14, 1994 Sukhpal Singh was brought to C. I. A. Staff at Bahadursinghwala by the police. He named the police officials as ASI Harminder Singh and HC Malkiat Singh. The police officials subjected him and Sukhpal Singh to interrogation after July 14 and 15. Didar Singh went on to state that Sukhpal Singh was subjected to torture. On the evening of July 16 at 5.15 p. m. SSP Jasminder Singh came there alongwith ASI Harminder Singh and HC Malkiat Singh and interrogated Sukhpal Singh and also tortured him. On July 18, SSP Jasminder Singh again came there at 5 p. m. and interrogated Sukhpal Singh till 7 p. m. and also tortured him. Thereafter on July 20, SSP Jasminder Singh again interrogated Sukhpal Singh. 7. Similar is the statement of L. Nk. Raghubir Singh (witness No.42) who has stated in his police statement that on July 13,1994 a DSP, an ASI and two Head Constables namely. Surjit Singh, Harminder Singh. Malkiat Singh and Avtar Singh Phelwan respectively had directed that there was a secret jail of Sangrur at Bahadursinghwala and the C. R. P. F. personnel should not disclose this fact to anyone. Ten fifteen days later ASI Harminder Singh and HC Malkiat Singh came in the evening in a white van with a Sikh youth. Surjit Singh, Harminder Singh. Malkiat Singh and Avtar Singh Phelwan respectively had directed that there was a secret jail of Sangrur at Bahadursinghwala and the C. R. P. F. personnel should not disclose this fact to anyone. Ten fifteen days later ASI Harminder Singh and HC Malkiat Singh came in the evening in a white van with a Sikh youth. Raghubir Singh came to know that he was a Press Reporter named Sukhpal Singh Pali. He was locked up in a room at Bahadursinghwala. He was kept for ten twelve days and during that period that above mentioned police personnel had been coming there for his interrogation and torture. During this period SSP Jasminder Singh also came there two three times for interrogation. on July 23,1994 TSukhpai Singh was taken away by ASI Harminder Singh and HC Malkiat Singh from the detention room and taken to the interrogation room. He was interrogated for half an hour and subjected to torture. The witness could hear his cries. Later the two police officials took Sukhpal Singh in the van. The witness went on to give the description of the police officials including SSP who used to visit that place. 8. Const. S. B. Bishe (witness No.43 ). ASI Brij Bhushan Sharma (witness No.44) and Naik Mohd. Abbas (witness No.45) have also described the visits of the respondent to Bahadursinghwala. 9. The sole question to be considered is whether the evidence of the five witnesses described above was sufficient to hold that SSP Jasminder Singh had committed offences and if so, what offences under the Penal Code. According to the final report presented by the C. B. I. SSP Jasminder Singh, S. S. Sangrur and Surjit Singh, DSP Commando Bn. had committed offence under Sections 342 and 343, IPC whereas the other accused had committed offence under Secs. 120b, 364, 342 and 343, IPC. 10. The charge sheet final report under Sec.173, Cr. P. C. alongwith the accompanying statements of witnesses has been carefully examined in order to detenu line the complicity of the respondent. The case of the cm is that there was a conspiracy between ASI Massa Singh, ASI Harminder Singh, HC Malkiat Singh, HC Avtar Singh, HC Baljit Singh, Const. Ram Chand and Const. Sukhwinder Singh to abduct Sukhpal Singh on the night of July 12/13/1994 and keep him in wrongful confinement at C. I. A. Staff Bahadursinghwala. The case of the cm is that there was a conspiracy between ASI Massa Singh, ASI Harminder Singh, HC Malkiat Singh, HC Avtar Singh, HC Baljit Singh, Const. Ram Chand and Const. Sukhwinder Singh to abduct Sukhpal Singh on the night of July 12/13/1994 and keep him in wrongful confinement at C. I. A. Staff Bahadursinghwala. The case against the respondent was that he visited Bahadursinghwala for interrogation of the detainees including Sukhpal Singh Pali alongwith DSP Surjit Singh, Commando Bn. , Ladha Kothi, Sangrur. The factum that the respondents visits to Sukhpal Singh Pali at Bahadursinghwala has also been established by the five witnesses whose statements have been briefly described above. The question which is required to be determined is whether visiting a detention centre for interrogation purposes amounts to an offence of wrongful confinement. It is not the prosecution case that the respondent was a member of the group of conspirators who had abducted Sukhpal Singh Pali and kept him in illegal custody at Bahadursinghwala nor is there any evidence that when Sukhpal Singh was taken out of the detention centre in a van the respondent was present. If the respondent was visiting the detention centre and even interrogating Sukhpal Singh, it would not amount to any offence of wrongful confinement because the restraint which had been put on Sukhpal Singh had been put neither under the respondentts order not by his authorisation. With regard to this offence the prosecution has already presented the report of conspiracy against eight accused including DSP Surjit Singh Commando Bn. , visiting a person under wrongful confinement would not amount to any offence unless it is shown that the visitor had authorised the wrongful confinement and had authorised the confinement to continue when it came to his notice. Sukhpal Singh had been wrongfully confined by the other eight accused. He had been brought to Bahadursinghwala by some of them, interrogated and tortured him. Later he was taken out from there in a van and was not heard of again. With regard to this aspect of the case the evidence of the witnesses described above is quite clear and the categoric. The respondent was a mere visitor to the place of, confinement. It has not been established by the prosecution that he had either authorised the confinement or permitted the confinement to continue. With regard to this aspect of the case the evidence of the witnesses described above is quite clear and the categoric. The respondent was a mere visitor to the place of, confinement. It has not been established by the prosecution that he had either authorised the confinement or permitted the confinement to continue. It is no doubt true that respondent was SSP at Sangrur but simply visiting a confined person even for interrogation purposes would not make him liable for the offence as the offence had been committed by the eight other co-accused who were the ones who had brought the detainee to the place of confinement kept him there for a number of days and later taken him away. 11. Under the above circumstances it is found that there is no ground to interfere with the order of the learned Special Judge discharging the respondent. As regards the argument touching upon the necessity of sanction or the validity of sanction granted by the Punjab Government, suffice it to say that it remains of only academic interest because unless the respondent was a member of the main conspiracy visits to the place of confinement would not make him prima facie involved in the main use. 12. Resultantly, I find no merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Revision dismissed.