Sanction under section 197 Cr.P.C. is required before initiating criminal proceedings against a public servant for acts allegedly committed in the discharge of their official duty.

JUDGMENT - T.K. CHANDRASHEKHARA DAS, J.:---This writ petition has come up for hearing on 4-8-1998. The Counsel for the petitioner was absent. The A.P.P. Smt. Usha Kejariwal appeared for the State. Hence the case was adjourned for today as part-heard. Today also, when the matter came up before the Court, the Counsel for the petitioner was absent. So I decided to proceed with the matter in the absence of the petitioner or his Counsel. I heard A.P.P. Smt. Usha Kejariwal.

2.The petitioner challenges in this writ petition, the order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 40th Court, Girgaum, Bombay on 31-7-1990 in Case No. 34/89, where the first respondent was implicated for the offences punishable under sections 457, 427 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. The lower Court by the impugned order dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner for want of sanction under section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

3.The allegation made by the petitioner in the complaint was that while he was working as Manager in Country Liquor Bar bearing the name and style of 'Manashanti Country Liquor Bar' which is situated opposite Novelty Cinema, Bombay-7. He was residing in the premises to room No. 5, Maharaj building, Pathe Baburao Marg, Bombay-8. It is alleged that on 16-12-1983 around 5.00 p.m. the petitioner went to Santacruz to meet his parents. He stayed there at overnight and returned back to his room on the evening of 17-12-1983. When he came to his room he was surprised and shocked to know that somebody had broke opened the lock of his room and that the premises were sealed. He also found that the window panes by the rear side of the room was damaged. When he peeped through the outlet, he saw the articles like furniture, clothes etc. were lying scattered on the floor and that the room was found ransacked. On enquiry he came to know that some time on the previous night, on 16-12-1983 at 11.30 p.m. the respondent who is serving as an Inspector of Police with the company of other Police Constables armed with bamboos, metal rods had visited the premises and it was broke opened by hammering with the metal rods. He also came to know from the neighbours that the room was ransacked, articles of furniture were smashed, and damaged and it also disclosed in the complaint that Shri R.B. Tiwari, Special Executive Magistrate had protested the high-handedness and outrageous act of the respondent. He further alleges that Shri R.B. Tiwari was threatened by the respondent.

4.On the receipt of the complaint filed by the petitioner, the Magistrate had ordered that the Inspector of Police, D.B. Marg Police Station to make a panchanama of the articles and things lying in the room and directed to unseal the room and handed it over to the complainant. This order was came to be passed on 20-4-1983. According to the petitioner the respondent have abused and misused his powers and position and acted in most reckless and high-handed manner. The Court has ordered an enquiry by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Gavdevi Division. After recording the statements of the witnesses and gathering the materials, the police filed the report before the Court that no offence has been disclosed against the respondent under section 380, 457 and 427 of the I.P.C. On going through the report the learned Magistrate has dismissed the complaint on 27-11-1984. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner had filed a Revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay. The learned Sessions Judge allowed revision on 27-11-1984, set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate was directed by the learned Sessions Judge to take the case on file and dispose of the same according to law after examining the complainant on oath under section 200 of Cr.P.C. In the Revisional order the Magistrate was also directed to give an opportunity to the petitioner to examine the witnesses. Accordingly the case was further heard. The sworn statement of th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document