( 1 ) THIS petition is filed under Section 482, Cr. P. C. questioning the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mysore, in Cri. R. P. No. 33 of 1993, dated 24-4-1995 dismissing the revision petition and confirming the order dated 3-10-1992 passed in C. C. No. 860 of 1992 on the file of the Munsiff and JMFC, Chamarajanagar, directing to issue process to the petitioner herein.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are: On 27-4-1991 the respondent filed a complaint under Section 200, Cr. P. C. against the petitioner alleging that on 4-3-1991 at about 3 p. m. when the respondent was sitting in the house, the petitioner who is a Sub-Inspector of Police came in his van and questioned him as to whether he was Bole Gowda. On being confirmed, the petitioner assaulted the respondent with his hand, dragged him to the house and assaulted him and booted him and compelled him to show the money said to have been collected by him. It is also alleged that the petitioner abused the complainant's wife in vulgar language and assaulted her on private part, etc. Not being satisfied with it, the petitioner dragged the respondent to his van with the help of his staff and he was confined in the lock-up on that day. It is further the case of the respondent that on 5-3-1991 at about 10. 30 p. m. he was taken to a dark room behind the police station where his clothes were removed including his underwear and he was made naked and third degree methods were adopted against this respondent. He became unconscious as he could not bear the physical torture meted out to him, and he was detained in that room. On 6-3-1991 Dunde Gowda s/o Masane Gowda of mallyanapura village went to the police station enquiring about the respondent. As no interview was given, other persons also came to the police station demanding to send the complainant to the hospital for treatment. Despite all this, the respondent was not allowed to go out of the police station, nor was he given treatment and ultimately, having realised the condition of the respondent and being afraid of complications, he was sent to the hospital. He was in the hospital for a period of 12 days and he was discharged from the hospital on 30-5-1991. Thereafter, he lodged a complaint. The learned Magistrate after taking cognizance of the offence recorded the sworn statement and directed to issue process to him. The said order is questioned before the learned Sessions judge, who after considering the materials dismissed the criminal petition. As against that order, the petitioner approached this Court.

( 3 ) HEARD the learned Counsel on both sides.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner was working as Sub-Inspector of Police and while discharging his duties, he has arrested the accused/respondent. Therefore, sanction was absolutely necessary to prosecute him. He also further submitted that there is a direct nexus between the position and the action taken by him. Hence, the Magistrate ought to have rejected the complaint.

( 5 ) PER contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that no sanction is necessary to prosecute the Police Officer who has committed illegal acts. In support of his argument, he also placed reliance on a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Andhra pradesh v N. Venugopal and Others, wherein it is held:"it is clear that unless the act complained of appears to have been done or intended to be done 'under' the provisions of the police Act or of the other laws conferring powers on the police, the protection of Section 53 will not be available". In that case also their Lordships have considered the scope of Section 53 of the Madras Police Act (which is pan materia same to Section 70 of the karnataka Police Act ). It is further held that it becomes the task of the court, whenever any question whether this section applies or not arises to bestow particular care on its decision. In doing so, it has to asce