Back
Rajasthan High Court
Modi, J.
Hariram - Appellant
Versus
B.P. Sood - Respondents
Criminal Reference No.3 of 1955
Decided On : June 07, 1956
The policy of the legislature is to afford reasonable protection to public servants acting or purporting to Act in the discharge of their duties. This protection has certain limits and can only be claimed in the circumstances where the acts complained against and alleged to have been done by the public servants are reasonably connected with the discharge of their official duties and are not merely a cloak for doing the objectionable act. The circumstance that while so acting, the public servants acted in excess of their duty will not be sufficient ground for deprivation of such protection so long as there is a reasonable connection between the impugned act and the performance of the official duties. Where a particular act can be said to be done in the exercise official duty or in the purported exercise of such duty is essentially and substantially a question which will have to be determined on the facts and circumstances of each case and it is neither easy not possible to lay down any hard and fast formula for the ascertainment of this question. (Para 9)
The petitioner led a deputation consisting of himself and some of his friends to the Commissioner with the object of making a formal, though oral complaint against Shri Sood. The complaint was being made in the presence of Mr. Sood himself. When this was being done, Shri Sood felt that it his duty to defend himself and expose the character of the petitioner. A case under sec. 107 had been initiated just a week before against the petitioner and was pending trial in the court of the Magistrate Shri Sood, in these circumstances, said that the petitioner was a goonda and required to be set right. He uttered these words to his official superior,namely the Commissioner, to whom a complaint was being made at the time. It is impossible to say that while Shri Sood uttered these words, he did not have the proceeding under sec.107 Cr. P. C. in his mind. Most probable, he had. An interim order under sec. 117 Cr. P. C. had also bean made against the petitioner. Having regard to all these circumstances, it cannot be postulated that what Shri Sood said to the Commissioner with regard to the petitioner was, entirely divorced from or unconnected with the discharge of his duty or that he could not reasonably claim that what he did was in virtue of his official duty, namely to explain his conduct to his official superior and to expose the true character of the complainant. It is another matter that Shri Sood possibly acted in excess of his duty and perhaps it should have been better if he had exercised greater discretion in the choice of his words. It the circumstances sec. 197 presents a bar to the prosecution of Shri Sood in the absence of previous sanction. (Para 10)
2. The case of the petitioner Hariram is that on the 20th of July 1954 Shri B. P. Sood, who was Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Raisingh Nagar at the time, abused one Ajit Singh during court hours. Ajit Singh lodged a report against Shri Sood at police Station, Raisingh-Nagar and cited the petitioner as a witness Shri Sood was annoyed at this and it is said that consequently, he managed to have a proceeding under sec 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code instituted by the police in his court against the petitioner. Shri Sood issued a non-bailable warrant against the petitioner, as a result of which he was arrested and produced in his court on the 26th of July 1954. The petitioner applied for bail, but Shri Sood, without deciding the application for bail, transferred the case to the court of the Extra First Class Magistrate Raisingh-Nagar, who eventually released the petitioner on bail. The petitioners case further is that on the 1st of August 1954, the Commissioner Bikaner Division and the Collector Ganga-Nagar happened to visit Raisinghnagar and were staying at the Rest House. The petitioner, with the help of certain respectable citizens, took a deputation to the Commissioner and was reporting his chapter of grievances against Shri Sood. While this was being done, it is alleged that Shri Sood angrily said that the petitioner was a goonda and that he would set him right. The matter did not proceed further as the Commissioner intervened and asked Shri Sood to be quiet. On these allegations, the petitioner eventually filed a complaint under sec. 504 or the Indian Penal Code against Shri Sood in the court of the Additional Distinct Magistrate, Ganganagar, on the 11th of August 1954. The said Magistrate examined the petitioner and there after dismissed the complaint on the ground that the alleged objectionable words were spoken by Shri Sood to the Commissioner while he was acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties and therefore, under sec. 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Magistrate was barred from taking cognizance of the complaint as no previous sanction of the Government had been obtained in the matter.
3. The petitioner then went in revision to the learned Sessions Judge, Ganganagar. The learned Sessions Judge, disagreeing with the opinion of the court below, came to the conclusion that it was no part of the official duties of Shri Sood to have used abusive words with respect to the petitioner which he did Consequently, the learned Session Judge has made this reference.
4. The sole point for determination in this reference is whether Shri Sood was acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties within the meaning of sec.197 of the Criminal Procedure Code when he uttered the alleged objectionable words against the petitioner namely that he was a goonda and that Shri Sood would set him (the petitioner) right.
5. Now, the interpretation of the words "accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty" occurring in sec. 197 is not free from difficulty. There have been a number of decisions on this point and it is not easy to reconcile all of them. I may further point out at the very outset that the difficulty is felt more in the actual application of the principle underlying sec. 197 than the enunciation of the principle itself. I now propose to refer to a few impor-tant decisions on the point. The leading case is Dr. Hori Ram Singh vs.Emperor(l).Verda-chariar J. broadly classified cases on the application of sec. 197 into three groups. According to the first group, the correct test whether a public servant was acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty was that there must be something in the nature of the act complained against that attaches it to the official character of the
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
