Point of Law: sanction as contemplated under Section 197 Cr.P.C cannot be a precondition for taking cognizance off the offences against the accused and for prosecuting them. The trial court undoubtedly is justified in holding so and this Court finds no reason to interfere with that finding.

ORDER :

Challenge is raised by accused Nos.1 and 3 to 5 in these revisions against concurrent findings of guilt and passing of orders of conviction and sentence against them by Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kottarakkara (for short 'the trial court') and Additional District and Sessions Judge (Adhoc)-II, Kollam (for short 'the appellate court') in CC No.181/1996 and Crl.Appeal Nos.147 and 149 of 2009, respectively for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC')

2. By virtue of the judgment under challenge, the accused were found guilty for the offence under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC and convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/-each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each and also found guilty for the offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC and convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each. On realisation of the fine amount, Rs.10,000/-out of that was directed to be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C”).

3. The accused are policemen of Ezhukone Police Station and the main contentions projected by them in these revisions are that though they were public servants, cognizance was taken by the trial court and they were prosecuted without getting the sanction from the State Government as contemplated under Section 197 Cr.P.C. and therefore, the process of taking cognizance and conduct of trial are vitiated.

4. According to Sri. Gopalakrishna Kurup, the learned Senior Counsel and Sri.S.Rajeev, who were engaged respectively by accused Nos.1, 3 & 4 and 5, though the trial court as well as the appellate court were addressed on those, had taken a view that sanction as contemplated under Section 197 Cr.P.C is unwarranted in the case on hand, since the acts alleged to have been committed by the accused have nothing to do with or not related in any manner to the discharge of their official duties.

5. According to the learned counsel, the courts below are highly erred in taking such a view and are also unjustified in arriving at a finding of guilt against the accused in the case on hand. According to them, the complainant was taken into custody in connection with a case registered against him for having assaulted a policeman while discharging his official duties and therefore, the courts below have gone wrong in holding that sanction contemplated under Section 197 Cr.P.C is not required.

6. According to them, the complainant was arrested in Crime No.33/1996 by the A.S.I of Police, Ezhukone Police Station at about 8.15 p.m. on 08.02.1996 and was produced before the Magistrate on the following day. According to them, the injuries found on the body of the complainant were not inflicted by them, but were there at the time of his arrest itself.

7. Ext.D4 is the application seeking remand of the accused in judicial custody in Crime No.33/1996 at the time of his production firstly before the Magistrate. On finding the accused unable to speak, on account of the injuries sustained on his tongue, the Magistrate directed him to avail some treatment. The Magistrate also enlarged him on bail for that reason. Accordingly, he attended Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Kottarakkara wherefrom Ext.P3 was prepared and issued.

8. It is disclosed on a reading of Ext.D4 that, at the time of the alleged arrest of the complainant in the case on hand as accused in Crime No.33/1996, body note was not prepared. It is not described in Ext.D4 that at the time of arrest, the complainant in the case on hand had some allergic problems in his mouth or made any complaints of such difficulties. At the time the complainant was produced before the Magistrate, injuries were found on his tongue and other parts of body and due to hi