1943 Supreme(Cal) 177
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Derbyshire, C.J, Lodge, J., Khundkar, J.
R.C. Pollard - Appellant
Versus
Satya Gopal Mazumdar - Respondent
Decided On : 24-08-1943
Headnote:
Sanction - Assault - Section 197, Criminal P.C., Section 270, Government of India Act, 1935 - The court held that the accused, a Superintendent of Police, was acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty when he assaulted the complainant, a pleader, and therefore, the prosecution could not proceed without the sanction of the Local Government under Section 197, Criminal P.C. The court also found that the trial was held in an atmosphere of prejudice, as the Chief Minister had interfered in the case, and therefore, the conviction was set aside.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, a Superintendent of Police, assaulted the complainant, a pleader, in the compound of his bungalow. The complainant had gone to the bungalow to inquire about the arrest of his nephew and other youths who were involved in disturbances at the civil court buildings. The accused claimed that he was acting in the discharge of his official duty, while the complainant alleged that the assault was unprovoked.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial was held in an atmosphere of prejudice, as the Chief Minister had interfered in the case. The court also found that the accused was acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty when he assaulted the complainant. The court held that the accused could not be prosecuted without the sanction of the Local Government under Section 197, Criminal P.C.
Issues: Whether the accused was acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty when he assaulted the complainant, and therefore, whether the prosecution could proceed without the sanction of the Local Government under Section 197, Criminal P.C. Whether the trial was held in an atmosphere of prejudice, and therefore, whether the conviction should be set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the accused was acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty when he assaulted the complainant, and therefore, the prosecution could not proceed without the sanction of the Local Government under Section 197, Criminal P.C. The court also held that the trial was held in an atmosphere of prejudice, as the Chief Minister had interfered in the case, and therefore, the conviction was set aside.
Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused in the assault case. The court also set aside the convictions and sentences of the accused in the rice looting case. The court ordered a retrial of both cases.
JUDGMENT
Derbyshire, C.J. - On 25th May 1948 this Court issued a rule upon the District Magistrate of Murshidabad and upon the complainant to show cause why the conviction of the accused Pollard u/s 355, Penal Code (assault with intent to dishonour a person) and the sentence passed upon him to pay a fine of RS. 200 should not be set aside on the grounds that no previous sanction for the prosecution had been obtained u/s 197, Criminal P.C. or Section 270, Government of India Act, 1935, and that in the circumstances the accused was entitled to treat the complainant as a trespasser and thereby protected by the right of private defence. On 19th July 1943 the accused Pollard made a further application to this Court alleging that his trial was held in an atmosphere of prejudice rendering the proceedings ' illegal and void. In the second application the accused set out from his recollection certain parts of letters which he alleged were written by the then Chief Minister of Bengal, Mr. A.K. Fazlul Huq, to the District Magistrate during the pendency of the proceedings which prejudiced the proceed, ings and asked the Court to issue a rule upon the Government of Bengal to produce these letters. The second rule was granted and the Government of Bengal through the Deputy Legal Remembrancer produced the said letters in a sealed cover and deposited them with the Registrar of the appellate side of this Court. In view of the nature of the allegations made in the second application, the matter was reported to me by Lodge J. who presided over the Court which issued the rule and I caused the sealed envelope to be opened and the letters examined. Farther, in view of the matters disclosed by those letters this Special Bench was constituted to hear the application.
2. The short story of the facts relating to the assault case in which the accused was convicted are as follows : The accused is the Superintendent of Police, Berhampore, in the District of Murshidabad. On 9th September 1942, there were disturbances in the civil Court buildings at Berhampore as a result of which the District Judge sent for the Superintendent of Police, namely, the accused who arrived with several policemen and arrested four youths who were concerned in the disturbances. We are not told of the precise nature of the disturbances, but it has been alleged during the proceedings that they involved an attempt to set fire to the Court building. There were many disturbances at that time. The accused with his pose of police took the youths from the Court in the direction of the thana. He, however, did not proceed to the thana but intead went with his prisoners to his bungalow which is on the road to the thana. In the compound of his bungalow is an office used by the Intelligence Branch of the police. The accused left the youths in the charge of some of his subordinate police officers in his com-pound and went into his bungalow. A little while after the complainant, who is a pleader in the local Court, arrived and entered the compound. At the time there was a crowd of people, estimated by some witnesses at thirty and by others at eighty, outside the bungalow on the road. The complainant who was dressed in pleader's garb - black coat with trousers - proceeded towards the prisoners. One of them was his nephew. The complainant spoke to the police officers and, according to them, also to his nephew. The complainant says that his purpose was to ascertain under what provision of law the youths had been arrested and, if possible, to get bail for his nephew. The police officers told the complainant that they did not know under what provision of law the boys were arrested and according to them the complainant spoke to the boys, although the complainant denies this. There is no evidence to show that the complainant intended to do anything else other than what he says he came for. Shortly afterwards, the accused came out from his bungalow dressed not in police uniform but in a jersey and short