Sanction of Government for prosecution if necessary.

The petitioner before this Court is a Sub-Inspector of Police. A complaint was filed against him in. the Court of the Additional Munsiff-Magistrate, Karkal, alleging that he had committed offences under sections 325 and 342, Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and issued process against the accused. After the accused entered appearance, he raised a preliminary objection before the Migistrate that the Court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences as the same was barred by the provisions of section 170 of the Mysore Police Act, 1963. After hearing arguments, the learned Magistrate upheld the said contention taken by the accused and discharged the accused. The complainant filed a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge challenging the said order of discharge passed by the learned Magistrate. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, South Kanara, allowed the revision petition, set aside the order of discharge passed by the learned Magistrate and remanded the case to the lower Court with a direction to proceed with the case according to law. This order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is challenged in this revision petition.

2. It is necessary to set out the facts of the case in order to find out whether previous sanction of the Government is necessary under section 170 of the Mysore Police Act before the petitioner-accused could be prosecuted for the offences under sections 325 and 342, Indian Penal Code. The complainant’s case is that he is a resident of Hejamadi village and one Ananda Shetty was beaten on 13th October, 1970 in Hejamadi on a public road by one Narsu Poojary and some others. Ananda Shetty filed a complaint at the Mulky police station and the accused was the Sub-Inspector attached to the Mulki police station. The accused directed Ananda Shetty to produce before him the complainant and one Prakash Shetty as they had witnessed the occurrence to record their statement. On 18th October, 1970 at about 8 A.M., the complainant and Ananda Shetty and Prakash Shetty went to the police station where the accused was present. The accused asked Ananda Shetty to go away and told him that he would send the complainant and Prakash Shetty after recording their statements. Thereafter, Ananda Shetty left the place. Then the accused asked the complainant why he had come to support Ananda Shetty and the complainant told him that he had come there to state what he had seen. Then the accused abused him and asked him to give a statement to the effect that nothing had happened on 13th October, 1970. As the complainant did not agree to this, the accused slapped the complainant on his face, pushed him inside the lock-up and locked him up there. The complainant’s case is that he was kept in the lock-up till about 12-30 p.m. Again the accused asked the complainant whether he was prepared to give a statement as desired by him (accused). As the complainant did not agree, the accused kicked the complainant on his thigh and assulted him with a lathi which caused fracture to his fingers.

Thereafter, being unable to bear the torture, the complainant signed a statement prepared by the accused and the accused allowed the complainant to go out. The complainant then went to the hospital and got X-ray taken which disclosed that there was fracture of the fingers.

3. The question for consideration is, on the facts alleged in the complaint, whether sanction of the Government is necessary before the accused is prosecuted for the alleged offences.

4. This Court in The State of Mysore v. Manikyam1, held as follows:

“In order to claim protection, of section 170 (1) of the Mysore Police Act, 1963, the material point for consideration would be whether there is reasonable connection between the act and the official duty.

Where the complaint was that while the complainant was standing in the Verandah of the police station taking protection against rain, accused Sub-Inspector asked him to go away an