At the stage of considering directions under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., the question of admissibility of evidence does not arise, and the CD forming part of the record can be viewed by the court.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.

2. This petition is by the persons shown as accused, against whom application came to be filed seeking directions under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Said application came to be rejected. Respondent No.2 therefore filed Criminal Revision Application in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Jalna. Pending said revision, the petitioners filed an application raising objection that the material such as Compact Disk (CD) produced by the complainant/respondent No.2 cannot be seen by the Sessions Court while deciding the revision application, as the same is not produced along with certificate under section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the said application and thus the petitioners are before this Court.

3. At the time of alleged offence, petitioner No.1 was Dy. Superintendent of Police, petitioner No.2 was Police Inspector, petitioner No.2 was Police Sub-Inspector, Petitioner Nos.4, 5 and 7 were Police Constables and petitioner No.6 was a driver in the Police Department. Petitioner No.8 is a Home Guard at Jalna. Respondent No.2 happens to be the complainant.

4. Facts in short as alleged by respondent No.2 are that he happens to be a social worker and is a person having prestige in his community. One person from his community met with an accident and was admitted to ICU. Respondent No.2 came to know this as he had been to see his relative in the same hospital and therefore he went to see that patient as well. The said patient died in the hospital. On knowing this, a mob gathered in the hospital. The management of the hospital looking at the mob, called police force. Present petitioners, therefore, went to the hospital. Petitioner No.1 on reaching to hospital started abusing the persons from Gavali community. Since respondent No.2 happens to be a person from Gavali community, he did not like the same and he therefore started recording the incident with his mobile phone. One of the police constable, therefore, snatched the mobile and told about video recording to petitioner No.1. On that petitioner No.1 assaulted the complainant. In the incident the complainant received injuries. After some time, the complainant and other persons were taken to the police station. The respondent was kept in the police station for the entire night without giving him water and food. On next day at around 1.30 p.m. again the complainant was produced before petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.1 again abused him in the name of caste. As per the allegations, petitioner No.1 even demanded money from the complainant. With these and other serious allegations, the complainant tried to lodge a complaint with the police. However, no cognizance was taken. The complainant, therefore, went to the office of the Superintendent of Police for lodging the complaint. However, there again he was pressurized by the authorities and was asked not to file any complaint. On this, the complainant/respondent No.2 filed an application under section 156(3) of the Cr.PC. in the Court of learned JMFC, Jalna.

5. The learned JMFC by his order dated 27.07.2021 rejected the prayer under section 156(3) by holding that the power is discretionary power. No FIR can be registered against public servant without sanction from the competent authority. It is observed that by way of amendment to section 156(3), a public officer enjoys special privilege. It is further considered that the incident has occurred when police tried to control the mob gathered at the hospital and thus they were discharging official duty. It is also observed that since the alleged act is connected in discharge of official duty, prior sanction was necessary before passing order under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.

6. This order came to be challenged by respondent No.2 by filing a Revision in the Court of learned Sessions Judge. The petitioners filed an application objecting viewing of the video recorded on the CD having rec