ORDER : This is a reference made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Margao.

2. The facts necessary to be mentioned for the disposal of this matter are these :- The respondent herein filed complaint against the revision petitioner and four others for offences under Ss. 342, 352 and 504 etc., I. P. C.; in the First Class Magistrate's court at Margao. The learned Magistrate after recording the statement of the complainant under Section 200, Criminal P. C. summoned the accused to answer the charges. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate summoning the accused to answer the charges, the revision petitioner filed revision petition in the Sessions Court at Panaji contending that he was Deputy Superintendent of Police, that the Magistrate overlooked the provisions of Section 197, Criminal P. C. and issued summons and that the order passed by the Magistrate was fit to be set aside. The learned Sessions Judge reported to this Court that the Magistrate acted against law and that it was essential to give necessary directions to the Magistrate. On receiving the reference from the Sessions Court my learned predecessor and the Additional Judicial Commissioner heard the parties and passed the order dated 19th November 1966. (AIR 1967 Goa 121).

My learned predecessor found that there was no material to attract Section 197, Criminal P. C. and that it would be open to the petitioner to satisfy the Magistrate after evidence is recorded, that Section 197(1) was attracted and that he could not be prosecuted for want of sanction. The learned Additional Judicial Commissioner agreed with the opinion of the learned Sessions Judge. In view of the provisions of Section 7(2) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Judicial Commissioner's Court Regulation 1963, the order passed by my learned predecessor prevailed. Aggrieved by the order of my learned predecessor the revision petitioner went in appeal to the Supreme Court. The Honourable Supreme Court dismissed his appeal agreeing with the opinion expressed by my learned predecessor. The decision of the Supreme Court is that the material on record was not sufficient to hold that the revision petitioner herein had acted in discharge of his official duties and that it would be open to him to establish during the course of further proceedings that the requisite sanction under Section 197, Criminal P. C. must be obtained. After this Court pronounced its judgment and before the matter was decided by the Supreme Court, the Magistrate issued summons to the accused in the case to appear in his court to answer the charges.

The revision petitioner then contended, by filing petition dated 2-8-1967 before the Magistrate, that he was ready to establish that the acts alleged to have been committed were committed in the course of the discharge of his official duties and that that matter was fit to be decided at first. The petition dated 2-8-1967 was filed by the revision petitioner through his advocate. Before that petition, petition dated 14-3-1967 was filed by the revision petitioner in person in Magistrate's court contending that Section 197, Criminal P. C. was attracted and that no action could be taken on the complaint filed by the complainant till the required sanction was obtained. The learned Magistrate passed order dated 9-8-1967 dismissing the petition dated 2-8-1967 filed on behalf of the revision petitioner. Aggrieved by the order dated 9-8-1967 passed by the Magistrate the revision petitioner filed revision petition in Sessions Court. That petition has been decided by the Additional Sessions Judge at Margao by his order dated 27-7-1970 and he has made this reference by that order recommending that the order of the First Class Magistrate may be set aside and the Magistrate may be directed to take evidence and decide the question of the need of sanction under Section 197, Criminal P. C. before the commencement of the trial.

3. I have heard the arguments of the learned advocates appearing for the parties.

4. The

Click Here to Read the rest of this document