IMPORTANT POINT
Sanction as required u/s 197. Criminal Procedure Code is not necessary for prosecution of the officer-in-charge of a Police Station when the act could not be said to have a bearing such an integral relation with the duty of the accused person.

JUDGMENT

D.M. Patnaik, J. - The main question that arises in this revision against the order dated 29.6.1987 passed by the S.D.J.M.; Anandapur, in I.C.C. No. 11 of 1987 is whether sanction as required under section 197, Cr. P.C. is necessary for prosecution of the Officer-in-charge of Ghasipura Police Station.

2. The petitioner before this Court filed a complaint on 13.5.1987 in the Court of S.D.J.M., Anandapur, alleging therein that on 8.5.1987 at about 6 p.m. the opposite party went to the betel shop of the complainant installed at the Ghasipura bus-stand and without any rhyme or reason started abusing the complainant as "SALA, MAGHIA TO GANDIRE CHARBI HOIGALANI" and gave two slaps on the cheek of the complainant and a kick at the buttack and thereafter dragged him to the police station. It is alleged that the complainant suffered from bodily pain and was insulted and humiliated in presence of public. Hence the complaint under sections 294/323, I.P.C.

3. The S.DJ.M. after recording the initial statement of the complainant, conducted an enquiry under section 202, Cr.P.C.. Two witnesses were examined on the side of the complainant on 10.6.1987. The S.DJ.M. thereafter on the same day called for a report from the Officer-in-Charge of the said police station and asked the latter to submit a detailed report about the case. The report of the opposite party revealed that the complainant was involved in Ghasipura P.S. Case No. 38/87 dated 8/10-5-1987 under sections 379/506/294, I.P.C. and that after investigation, charge-sheet had been submitted against the complainant. After receiving this report, the S.D.J .M. came to the conclusion that the alleged occurrence took place during the course of in vestigation against the complainant and since the opposite party was the Investigating Officer, the alleged occurrence in the present case took place while the opposite party was discharging his duty as a public servant in investigating into the particular case. By the impugned order dated 29.6.1987 the S.D.J.M. being satisfied that in a case of this nature sanction was necessary and in the absence of sanction, he declined to take cognizance and rejected the complaint petition under. section 203, Cr. P.C. as mentioned above.

4. Mr. D.P. Dhal, learned counsel for the petitioner, with reference to a number of decisions cited by him submitted that the act of the opposite party police officer in assaulting the petitioner in the manner stated above, was highly unwarranted and that such an act under no circumstance can be termed as an act connected with the discharge of the public duty of the opposite party. It is idle to refer to all the decisions cited by Mr. Dhal. Suffice it to refer to the following decisions:

In the case reported in A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1841 S.B. Saha and others v. M. S. Mochar1, their Lordships were dealing with a case of the customs officials who had allegedly committed the offence of criminal breach of trust by illegally tampering and breaking the seals of a consignment which was taken to their custody after seizure during the customs raid. The question of absence of sanction was raised before the trying Magistrate and the accused persons claimed discharge and the Magistrate resorting to the provisions under section 197 of the Code discharged the accused persons for want of sanction. The Supreme Court in para 23 of the judgment held that the offence alleged against the accused persons was dishonest misappropriation or conversion of the goods by the accused persons. Their Lordships held that there could not be any dispute that the seizure of the goods by the accused persons and their being thus entrusted with the goods or dominion over them, was an act committed by them while acting in the discharge of their official duty. But the subsequent act of dishonest misappropriation or conversion of those goods by the accused persons which is the second necessary element of the offence of criminal breach of trust could not be said to