Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : V.BHASKARA RAO
K.Venkataramana Reddy - Appellant
Versus
A.Radha - Respondent
Crl.R.C.No. 248/89
Decided On : 04-26-90
Advocates Appeared :
Mr. C. Padmanabha Reddy,Mr. T. Sali Reddy
Held : There can be two categories of cases that fall under the protection of Sec. 197 Cr.P.C. They are (i) the act complained of is one authorised by a statute or law but became questionable on account of the fact that it was done with fraudulent or dishonest intention, and (ii) the act complained of. though not authorised by statute or law, is intimately and integrally connected with his official or statutory duty and has thus a reasonable nexus to the discharge of duty. In finding whether or not a complaint falls under either or neither of the two categories, the facts and circumstances of the case have to be appreciated so as to arrive at a balance between the protection available under Sec. 197 Cr.P.C. and the protection of the private citizen from the onslaughts under the colour of Office. It is only when the act or such appreciation does not fall under either of the above two categories and amounts to an offence that no sanction under Sec. 197 Cr.P.C. is necessary for purposes of prosecution of the accused. In case they fall under either of the two categories, the sanction contemplated by Sec. 197 Cr .P.C. is necessary.
In this case, neither the complaint lodged is in the official capacity of the petitioner nor the respondents are sought to be tried for the offences alleged in their official capacity. The statutory right available to the petitioner under the Code of Criminal Procedure Code to prosecute the respondents in his individual capacity far the acts done by them in excess of their official capacity remains unaffected and accordingly no permission under Order 197 of the A.P. Police Mannual is necessary,
In so far as A-13 and A-14 are concerned the acts complained of were not in excess and therefore sanction under Sec. 197 Cr.P.C, is necessary. Consequently, Sec. 53 of the A.P. District Police Act is attracted and in view of the complaint against them was filed some time long after the period of three months prescribed by Sec. 53, the same is barred by limitation.
Crl. R.C. Partly Allowed
( 1 ) THE petitioner is the complainant in C. C. No. 99/83 on the file of the 2nd Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore. He filed this revision against an order of the Sessions Judge, Nellore, reversing the order of the 2nd Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class in C. C. 99/83.
( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are : The petitioner complainant worked as a Sub-Inspector of Police at Kaluvoya of Nellore District. During that time, on 21-6-81, R-1 and R-2 the Sub-Inspector and Head-Constable of Nellore Town came to him in a jeep and took him to the Central Crime Police Station, Nellore, by making a false representation that he was wanted by the Addl. Superintendent of Police, Nellore. On finding that he was brought to the Central Crime Station instead of to the Addl. S. P. , the petitioner questioned them as to why he was misrepresented. Thereupon R-1 and R-2 got enraged and abused him in vulgar language. When the petitioner requested them to behave in a decent manner, they beat him with their hands on the neck and back and dragged him out of the jeep and took him forcibly into the Crime Police Station. Inside the police station R-13 the Asst. Superintendent of Police and R-14 the Circle Inspector, Nellore, were present. The complainant was thrown before them. On seeing the petitioner R-13 and R-14 abused him and directed the complainant to remove his clothes. Accordingly the petitioner removed his clothes and requested them to inform the accusation, if any, against him. Then they informed him that he was concerned in a crime of the Town Police Station. Nellore, for offences u/ss. 354. and 447 IPC. This incident was witnessed by one Rameshwar Rao and another Yanadi Reddy. Thereafter at 9-30 p. m. the petitioner was taken to the I-Town Police-Station, Nellore, by R-1 and R-2. In that police-station R-13 and R-14 were present. They opened the lockup room and directed the petitioner to go in. The petitioner requested them to release him on bail on the ground that the offences were bailable and that he was ready to furnish necessary sureties. Thereupon R-13 and R-14 grew wild and abused him in vulgar language. Then A-14 (R-14) caught hold of the neck of the petitioner and A-13 slapped him on the back and both of them pushed him forcibly into the lock-up room. Thereafter A-13 and A-14 left the police station. At about 11-00 p. m. , the petitioner was taken out of the lockup room by orders of R-3 and he was asked to sign in the Prisoner s Search Register. Then the complainant questioned as to why he was asked to sign at 11-00 p. m. whereas he was actually kept in the lock-up room at 9-30 p. m. However, the petitioner signed in the register with a comment that he was refused bail though he was entitled to since the offences were u/ Ss. 354 and 447 IPC. On this R-3, R-4, R-6, R-7 and R-8, who were present there, got wild and beat the complainant with their hands indiscriminately and pushed him into the lock-up room. During that night he was in the lock-up room without food and water. Next day morning at about 8-00 a. m. he was taken out to answer calls of nature. After answering calls of nature he contacted his advocate at Nellore over telephone and informed him to contact his brother for purposes of getting sureties for his bail. While the petitioner was still on conversation with the advocate, R-3 and R-6 snatched away the phone depriving the petitioner from completing his talk. The petitioner asserted his right to contact his advocate. Thereupon, R-3 and R-6 called R-4, R-5 and R-8 to R-12 who were present in the police-station. Then R-3 to R-13 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of assaulting the petitioner. R-6 to R-8 and R-10 were armed with lathies and they beat the complainant with the said lathies. A-3 to A-5, A-9, A-11 and A-12 gave fist-blows on the complainant and told him that he had no business to contact his advocate. Due to the blows the petitioner fell d
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
