A public servant is protected from prosecution for acts done in his official capacity without the sanction of the appropriate authority under S. 197, Cr. P. C.

Judgment

MUDHOLKAR, J. :

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court quashing the issue of process against the respondent.

2. The respondent is an Assistant Commissioner of Police in the City of Calcutta and the appellants had made a complaint against him alleging that he had committed an offence under S. 348, I. P. C. that is, wrongful confinement in order to extort a confession or compel restoration of property. The facts as alleged by the appellant are as follows:

3. One Manoharlal Seth had lodged a complaint on July 28, 1960 against him and two other persons Fatehlal and Jaichand for offences under S. 120B/420, I.P. C. and S. 420 I. P. C. Manoharlal Seth had alleged in his complaint that these persons had induced him to purchase a bar of brass for Rs. 6000/- on the representation that it was of gold and thus duped him. Upon this complaint investigation was taken up by the police. He came to know Manoharlal Seth in the course of his business. They were on quite friendly terms in the beginning and later on considerable differences arose between him and Manoharlal Seth. As a result of that Manoharlal Seth told him that unless he settled his differences with Manoharlal Seth according to the latter s dictates he would put him into trouble through his friend, the respondent; and that it is because of this that Manoharlal lodged a complaint against him for cheating. This complaint was thus a false complaint and it is common ground that ultimately it was dismissed by the Presidency Magistrate, 8th Court, Calcutta on January 2, 1961.

4. Then according to the appellant on August 3, 1960 at about 6.00 a. m. P. C. Kundu Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Burrabazar police station along with another Sub-Inspector S. Bhattacharya, visited his residence, searched his house and arrested him. Neither of them had any warrant with them for the search of the house or for the arrest of the appellant. Upon enquiry by him from these persons they told him that this was being done under the orders of the respondent. After his arrest the appellant said that he was taken to the Burrabazar police station at about 7.00 a. m. and then to Jorasanko police station and produced before T. K. Talukdar, Sub-Inspector in charge of that police station. From there he was taken to various places in Calcutta with a rope tied round his waist by Kundu and Bhattacharya and was eventually produced at about 12 noon before the respondent and in his office at Lalbazar. There the respondent started threatening the appellant and asked him to settle the dispute with Manoharlal Seth and pay him Rs. 5000/- or to acknowledge in writing that he would pay this sum of money to Manoharlal Seth. At about 3.30 p. m. on the same day his brother Iswarilal accompanied by a lawyer Chakravaty visited the respondent s office and sought the appellant s release on bail as the offence was bilabile one. The respondent, however, refused to grant bail saying that no bail would be granted until a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was paid to Manoharlal Seth. The appellant says that he was detained at Lalbazar police station till 8.00 p.m. From there he was taken to Jorasanko police station and kept in the lock-up for the whole night. On the next day, that is, August 4, 1960 he was again produced before the respondent at Lalbazar where the latter repeated his threats and that after obtaining his finger prints and taking his photographs he was taken to the court of the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate where he was released on bail at about 2.30 p.m.

5. On August 19, 1960 the appellant preferred a complaint before the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta under S. 348 and S. 220, I. P. C., and S. 13C of the Calcutta Police Act, 1866. In so far as two of the persons named as accused therein, S. I. Kundu and S. I. Talukdar, he decided to issue process against him under S. 220 I. P. C. and S. 13C of the Calcutta Police Act. As regards the respondent, he decided to issue process against him un