Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 704 (ORI)

Bisweswar Satpathy v. Chandra Sekhar Kumar

2003-12-12

L.MOHAPATRA

body2003
JUDGMENT L. MOHAPATRA, J. — This revision is directed against the order dated 15.2.1996 passed by learned J.M.F.C., Rampur in I.C.C. No.22 of 1995 holding the criminal proceeding initiated against the opposite party not maintainable in absence of sanction from the appropriate authority under Section 197, CrPC. 2. The petitioner is the complainant. The complaint was filed on the allegation that the petitioner is a teacher serving in Mayabarha U.P. School in the district of Sonepur where the opposite party was working as the Sub-Collector at the relevant time. On 5.9.1995 at about 10.30 A.M. when the petitioner entered into the school premises he saw the opposite party sitting on a chair on the school verandah. The moment the opposite party saw the petitioner entering into the school he suddenly flarged up and abused him in obscene language alleging therein that the petitioner had come to the school late and no sooner the peti¬tioner gave a reply that he had come in right time, the opposite party dealt four to five slaps and fist blows on his back and twisted his hand forcibly. It is further alleged that when the complainant begged apology after knowing identity of the opposite party the opposite party dealt two to three kick blows on his back. After receipt of the complaint the learned Magistrate took up inquiry u/s. 202, CrPC in which four witnesses were examined by the complainant including the Doctor who stated that the complainant had sustained one grievous injury on his person apart from other injuries. 3. In the impugned order the learned Magistrate, however without discussing about the existence of a prima facie case proceeded to examine the question of sanction u/s 197, CrPC and found that sanction was necessary for prosecuting the opposite party being a public servant and in absence of any sanction held the complaint to be not maintainable. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the order on the ground that the act alleged has no nexus with discharge of official duty and therefore the opposite party is not entitled to protection u/s 197, CrPC. Mr. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the order on the ground that the act alleged has no nexus with discharge of official duty and therefore the opposite party is not entitled to protection u/s 197, CrPC. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party, on the other hand, submitted that the opposite party had gone to the school for inspection in his offi¬cial capacity and the petitioner having come late to the school, he warned him and in the process if he used some abusive words that can at best be said to be doing something in excess while discharging official duty and, therefore, protection u/s 197, CrPC is available to him. Learned counsel appearing for both the parties relied on several decisions of this Court and the apex Court in support of their rival contentions. 5. The object of Section 197, CrPC is to guard against vexatious proceeding against a public servant and to secure opinion of the superior authority as to whether it is desirable to have a prosecution against such public servant. Section 197 is an exception to the general rule covered by Section 190, Cr.P.C. and bars the jurisdiction of the Court to take cognizance of the offence unless there is an order according sanction for prosecu¬tion of the public servant by the Government. Section 197 pre¬scribes that no Court shall take cognizance of any such offence except the previous sanction in respect of a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been commit¬ted by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. The term "acting or purporting to act in dis¬charge of official duty" has been taken into consideration by this Court and the apex Court in several decisions and it has been held that even while discharging duty if a public servant is accused of some excess, if the same has some nexus with discharge of official duty protection u/s 197, CrPC will be available. I have not referred to the decisions cited by learned counsel appearing for the parties in details since the law in this regard is more or less settled. Whether sanction u/s 197 is necessary or not will depend on facts of each case. I have not referred to the decisions cited by learned counsel appearing for the parties in details since the law in this regard is more or less settled. Whether sanction u/s 197 is necessary or not will depend on facts of each case. The Court has to see the act alleged and whether such act has any nexus with discharge of official duty or not. In the present case, the opposite party as the Sub-Collector, Sonepur had gone to the school for inspection. While he was sitting on the verandah of the school the petitioner who was working as a teacher in the said school entered into the school premises. No sooner the opposite party saw the petitioner entering into the school premises it is alleged that he abused him in the following language : “Sale Tu Mote Chinnichu, Mu Sub-Collector, Sonepur, Tote Jail Deipare, To Munda Phatai Deipare etc. and why did you come in late”. It is further alleged that when the petitioner replied that he had come in right time, opposite party dealt four to five slaps and fist blows on his back. It is further alleged that the opposite party twisted the petitioner’s hand and after knowing the identity of opposite party when the complainant begged apolo¬gy he was again assaulted by him by means of kick blows on his back. These alleged acts of assault get ample support from the medical evidence. On perusal of the lower Court records I find that three injuries were found on the body of the petitioner. One injury is an abrasion on the right side of the neck and another injury is a bruise on the left side of the chest. The third injury is a grievous one resulting in complete rest for 21 days. It also appears from the medical report that the petitioner was examined on police requisition pursuant to a station diary entry on the day the occurrence took place. Even if the contention of learned counsel appearing for the opposite party is accepted to the extent that the opposite party had gone to the school for inspection in his official capacity, there was no reason for him to assault the petitioner resulting in such injuries. Even if the contention of learned counsel appearing for the opposite party is accepted to the extent that the opposite party had gone to the school for inspection in his official capacity, there was no reason for him to assault the petitioner resulting in such injuries. The assault part of the allegation gets corroboration from the medical evi¬dence and under no stretch of imagination it can ever be said that assaulting the petitioner for coming late to the school is in discharge of official duty. I am therefore, inclined to allow this revision and accordingly the same is allowed. Order dated 15.2.1996 is set aside and the learned Magistrate is directed to proceed with the case. Revision allowed.