SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1983 Supreme(Mad) 161

U.L.BHAT
M. J. George – Appellant
Versus
S. I. of Police, Authikad – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
P. V. Aiyappan and P. S. Biju, for Petitioner.
Public Prosecutor, for Respondent.

ORDER.-

The complainant in Crl.M.P. No. 2360, of 1982 on the file, of the Judicial Magistrate of the Second Class No. 11, Trichur, who filed the complaint against Sub-Inspector of Police, Anticad Police Station alleging offences under sections 379 and 384 , Indian Penal Code, being aggrieved by the order of the Magistrate dismissing the complaint for want of sanction under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has filed this criminal revision, petition.

2. There can be no doubt that Sub-Inspector of Police is a public servant within the meaning of section 21, Indian Penal Code. The question is whether a complaint against a Sub-Inspector of Police would fall within sub- section (1) of section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which case alone sanction of the State Government will be necessary for any prosecution. The learned Magistrate took the view that section 197(1) will apply in the case of prosecution of a Sub-Inspector of Police and this view is contested by the revision petitioner.

3. The main part of sub- section (1) of section 197 reads thus:

(1) When any person who is or was Judge or Magistarte or a public resvant not removable from his office save by or with t








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top