IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
V.S. Deshpande, J.
Appellants: Namdeo Kashinath Aher
Vs.
Respondent: H.G. Vartak and Anr.
Criminal Ref. No. 151 of 1968 Decided On: 03.03.1969
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: R. Jethmalani, Spl. Public Prosecutor and M.R. Kotwal, Asst. Govt. Pleader for State
For Respondents/Defendant: Rajani Patel and Y.S. Murudkar, Advs.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 197 - SCOPE - MINISTER - PUBLIC SERVANT - OFFICIAL DUTY - OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 500, I.P.C. - SANCTION - NECESSITY.
Fact of the Case:
A complaint was filed against a Minister and another person for the offence under Section 500, I.P.C. The Minister claimed protection under Section 197, Cr.P.C. on the ground that he was a public servant and the alleged offence was committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Minister was a public servant and could be removed only by the Governor, but the alleged offence was not committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. The court rejected the Minister's claim for protection under Section 197, Cr.P.C.
Issues: Whether the Minister was a public servant within the meaning of Section 197, Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Minister was a public servant within the meaning of Section 197, Cr.P.C. However, the court also held that the alleged offence was not committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. The court observed that the Minister's reaction to the complainant's question was one of anger and resentment, and that his words and actions cannot be attributed to the discharge or purported discharge of his official duty.
Final Decision: The court rejected the Minister's claim for protection under Section 197, Cr.P.C. and directed the trial Magistrate to proceed with the case in accordance with law.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present Reference are as follows: The complainant claims to be an advocate and a member of the Kalyan Municipality and a social worker. On 3-1-1968 he filed the present complaint against the two accused alleging that they committed an offence under Section 500, I.P.C.. on 2-1-1968 at about 6-30 p.m., when accused No. 1 performed the opening ceremony of a centre of distributing milk powder at Kalyan, at the instance of the local Rotary Club. Accused No. 1 is a Minister of the Maharashtra Cabinet while accused No. 2 is the President of the Zilla Parishad, Thana. According to the com-plaint, after accused No. 1 declared the Centre as opened and proceeded to make it speech, the complainant stood up and showed a sample of Mexican Punjab wheat mixed with D.D.T. powder, which according to the complainant was distributed to the ration-card-holders of Kalyan in the first fortnight of December, 1967. The complainant then asked if such wheat was fit for human consumption. On this question being asked, accused No. 1 got angry and called him a goonda. So saying accused No. 1 asked the Dy. S.P. and the Inspector of Police to take his care. Accused No. 2 is also alleged to have called him badmash and asked the Police officers to drive him out. The two police officers came and stood by his side. The complainant then asked as to when his question would be answered and on that accused No. 1 is alleged to have told him that he would answer the questions after the speech was over. It appears that passions had cooled down by the time the speech was over and there was some talk and it was agreed that the matter be pursued by contacting the Secretariat. Next day, however, the complainant filed this complaint and on that very day the learned Magistrate ordered the issue of process for offence under Section 500. I. P. C. against both the accused.
3. In due course the accused appeared and on 27-2-1968 an objection was raised on behalf of accused No. 1 that he was a public servant within the meaning of Section 197, Cr. P. C. and the Court can-not take cognizance of any complaint against him without the sanction of the State Government. After hearing the arguments, the learned Magistrate overruled the objection by his order dated 27-3-1967, holding that accused No. 1 was neither a public servant nor could he be said to have acted or purported, to have acted in the discharge of his official duty when he became angry and called complainant a goonda. Accused No. 1 then preferred a revision . application to the Sessions Court, Thana, and the same was disposed of by the II Addl. Sess. Judge, Thana, who by his judgment dated 31-10-1968, taking a different view on, both the points, has made this Reference:
4. Before the protection under Section 197, Cr. P. C. claimed by any accused he shall have to satisfy three conditions: Firstly, that he is a public servant; secondly, that he is not removable from his office save by or with the. sanction of a State Government or the Central Government, and, thirdly, that he is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official, duty. It is not disputed by Mr. Rajani Patel the learned advocate appearing for the complainant before me, that accused No. 1 is a public servant. He, however, disputed the second claim of accused No. 1 that he was only removable by or with the sanction of the State Government. Acco
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.