V. V. S. RAO, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition raises an important question as to method and manner in which suspects of offence, who are also Police Officers; Inspectors of Police, Sub-Inspectors of Police, Head Constables and Police Constables - are to be dealt with under the law. The question stems up for consideration in the circumstances briefly narrated hereunder. ( 2 ) DURING elections to Chilamanur Gram Panchayat the second petitioner contested for the office of Ward Member of fourth ward. During counting of votes for Sarpanch post, there were clashes between opposing groups and a crime being Crime Ndo. 45 of 2001 at Balayapalli Police Station was registered on 20. 8. 2001. It is alleged that the second respondent and others picked up the petitioners and were beaten severely by resorting to third degree methods. They were abused in filthy language presumably because the petitioners contested the election. It is also alleged that both the petitioners were paraded half naked in the main streets of the village. All the twelve arrested persons were not even produced within twenty-four hours before Judicial Magistrate of First Class. First petitioner s wife sent a representation to the Hon ble the Chief ( 3 ) JUSTICE of this Court, and thereafter first petitioner was produced before Judicial magistrate of First Class, Venkatagiri, who sent him for medical examination. The second petitioner was also produced before the Magistrate only when his wife submitted a petition to the learned District Judge, Nellore. The petitioners alleged that they were tortured and a leg and a hand of the second petitioner were fractured. ( 4 ) THE matter was reported to National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (NCSCST), New Delhi. In November, 2001 the petitioners were asked to appear before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudur. The statements of the petitioners were recorded by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gudur. In the meanwhile, petitioners were threatened and they were asked to give up their case. The petitioners therefore filed a private complaint on 21. 11. 2001 before the leaned District Judge under the Provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, the Act ). The case was made over to Magistrate competent to take cognizance at Venkatagiri. The petitioners therefore filed a private complaint on 21. 11. 2001 before the leaned District Judge under the Provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, the Act ). The case was made over to Magistrate competent to take cognizance at Venkatagiri. ( 5 ) THE Court at Venkatagiri started recording evidence when respondents 1 and 2, and five other police personnel along with four local police officials threatened the petitioners. The Crime Branch of Criminal Investigation Department (CBCID), Government of Andhra Pradesh enquired into the matter and submitted a report to the fourth respondent whereupon a crime being Crime No. 15 of 2002, was registered at Balayapalli Police Station by C. B. C. I. D presumably on a communication from NHRC. The petitioners filed the present writ petition praying this Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in not furnishing report of C. B. C. I. D. to NHRC and NCSCST as illegal and arbitrary, and for a consequential direction to respondents to submit report of the C. B. C. I. D. to NHRC and NCSCST, New Delhi. ( 6 ) WHEN the matter was listed before me on 22. 7. 2002, I directed the fourth respondent, Additional Director General of Police, C. B. C. I. D. , Andhra Pradesh, to submit a status report in the case. A report was submitted to this Court by the fourth respondent referring to the report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, C. B. C. I. D. in which it was stated that the allegations of abuse of power by the Police and use of filthy language and other untoward incidents meted out to petitioners were true and that a crime has been registered under Sections 343, 326 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 3 (1) (viii) and (x) of the Act, and that appropriate action will be taken for submitting report before NHRC and NCSCST. The matter was adjourned from time to time to enable them to complete enquiry and examine all the witnesses by C. B. C. I. D. On 13. 2. 2003, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, C. B. C. I. D. Sri K. Babu Rao, who was investigating the crime, was present in the Court. He submitted that after completing investigation, charge sheet has been prepared and it will be filed in the Court shortly. 2. 2003, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, C. B. C. I. D. Sri K. Babu Rao, who was investigating the crime, was present in the Court. He submitted that after completing investigation, charge sheet has been prepared and it will be filed in the Court shortly. The matter was adjourned again. It was brought to the notice of the Court that sanction of the Government for prosecuting the Police Officials responsible is not received and hence charge sheet could not be filed. ( 7 ) IN view of the submission made on 12. 3. 2003 that charge sheet could not be filed for want of sanction under Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Code), I passed the following order. Though this Court gave a direction to Sri K. Babu Rao, Deputy Superintendent of Police, C. B. C. I. D. and Investigating Officer to file charge sheet, it appears charge sheet is not filed as the Government did not pass orders sanctioning prosecution under Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is made clear that for investigation of a case or filing charge sheet against Government Officials or Public Servants sanction of Government is not necessary and such sanction is necessary only at the time of prosecution of offenders. Therefore, as directed by this Court on 13. 2. 2003, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, C. B. C. I. D. , shall file charge sheet forthwith and as and when the same is filed the Court of concerned Judicial Magistrate of First Class shall accept the same. Post after one week. ( 8 ) WHEN the matter is called today, learned Government Pleader for Home submitted that charge sheet was filed before the Court of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore on 10. 3. 2003 itself. He also stated that a report is being sent to NHRC and NCSCST shortly. In view of the submission made by the learned Government Pleader for Home, the grievance of the petitioners is substantially redressed. However, the way the accused in this case, who are Police Officials, are treated has caused anxiety to the Court as to impartiality of the Police establishment in dealing with cases where accused are themselves Police. In view of the submission made by the learned Government Pleader for Home, the grievance of the petitioners is substantially redressed. However, the way the accused in this case, who are Police Officials, are treated has caused anxiety to the Court as to impartiality of the Police establishment in dealing with cases where accused are themselves Police. Therefore, this Court desires to make certain observations, which would go a long way in projecting the Police establishment as the protectors and enforcers of law without any discrimination and in accordance with rule of law. ( 9 ) THE provisions of the Code are clear and categorical that a Police Officer can arrest any person who has been concerned in any cognizable offence (See Section 41 ). Even where the accused is a Police Officer there is no exception to the general rule. The only exception provided is in Section 45 of the Code, which stipulates that notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 41 to 44 of the Code no member of the Armed Forces of the Union shall be arrested for anything done or purported to be done by him in discharge of his official duties. ( 10 ) BE it, however, noted that under Article 361 of the Constitution of India, the President and the Governors of the States cannot be subjected to any criminal proceedings during the tenure of the office. Insofar as the people s representatives like Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) and Members of Parliament (MPs) are concerned, the Business Rules or the Rules of Legislative Assembly/ Parliament (Lok Sabha/rajya Sabha) do not prohibit arrest of MP/mla. The only requirement is the arrest has to be informed to the Presiding Officer of the respective Legislative House. Whenever a cognizable offence is reported to the Officer in-charge of a Police Station, it shall be the duty of such officer to register the crime and take up investigation immediately after sending a report to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence. Section 157 of the Code also casts a statutory duty on the Police Officer in-charge of the Police Station to proceed in person to the scene of crime to investigate the facts and circumstances, and if necessary take measures for arrest of the offender. Here again the Police Personnel are not exempted from being arrested whenever they are accused of cognizable offence. Here again the Police Personnel are not exempted from being arrested whenever they are accused of cognizable offence. The accused person irrespective of the status or rank in the society or in official domes is given protection both under the provisions of the Constitution of India as well as the Code that he shall have to be informed all the grounds for arrest and has to be produced within twenty-four hours before the Magistrate competent to take cognizance of the offence. It is for the Magistrate either to release the offender on bail, or to remand till such time prescribed subject to provisions of Section 167 of the Cr. P. C. ( 11 ) THE arrest of offender in criminal law has significance. Without dilating on the pros and cons of arrest, it is beneficial to extract the following from the consultative paper of Law Commission of India prepared on the subject of arrest. ( 12 ) ARREST shall be effected (a) where it is necessary to arrest the accused to bring his movements under restraint to infuse confidence among the terror-stricken victims or where the accused is likely to abscond and evade the process of law; (b) where the accused is given to violent behaviour and is likely to commit further offences unless his movements are brought under restraint or the accused is a habitual offender and unless kept in custody is likely to commit similar offences again; (c) where the arrest of the persons is necessary to protect the arrested person himself; or (d) where such arrest is necessary to secure or preserve evidence of or relating to the offence; or (e) where such arrest is necessary to obtain evidence from the person concerned in an offence punishable with seven years or more, by questioning him. ( 13 ) WHEN arrest of offender has significance in the investigation, trial and prosecution of an offender guilty of committing cognizable offence, no police official can treat the power vested in him lightly or ignore duty cast on him by the Code. The Police have to act impartially having regard to principles of equality before law and justice to all. Any conduct which tends to portrait the police as an organ of the rich and the enemy of poor would not augur well to the Police as well as democracy. The Police have to act impartially having regard to principles of equality before law and justice to all. Any conduct which tends to portrait the police as an organ of the rich and the enemy of poor would not augur well to the Police as well as democracy. The principles of rule of law should guide everybody in enforcement of law. "be you ever high, the law is above you" must be the motto of the Police in dealing with culprits especially the Police Officers, who are guilty of committing an offence. Keeping in view the growing number of complaints against the Police, it would be in the interest of all, for the Government of Andhra Pradesh to lay down guidelines and issue instructions if necessary by amending existing Police Standing Orders in this regard. The guidelines/instructions may provide for investigation of cases where the Police are accused either under IPC, or other penal laws. The instructions should also provide for stringent disciplinary action against erring police officials who fail to take action in accordance with law as indicated hereinabove. ( 14 ) THE writ petition with the above observations is disposed of. The petitioners shall be paid costs of the writ petition quantified at Rs. 5,000/- (rupees five thousand only ).