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

1991 Supreme(Ori) 61

D.M.PATNAIK
TRILOCHAN BARIK – Appellant
Versus
RAGHUNATH BAL – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
D.P.Dhal

D. M. PATNAIK, J.

( 1 ) THE main question that arises in this revision against the order dated 29-6-87 passed by the S. D. J. M. , Anandapur, in I. C. C. No. 11 of 1987 is whether sanction as required under S. 197, Cr. P. C. is necessary for prosecution of the Officer-in-Charge of Ghasipura Police Station.

( 2 ) V The petitioner before this Court filed a complaint on 13-5-97 in the Court of S. D. J. M. , Anandapur, alleging therein that on 8-5-87 at about 6 p. m. the opposite party went to the betel shop of the complainant installed at the Ghasipura bus-stand and without any rhyme or reason started abusing the complainant as "sala, MAGHIA TO GANDIRE CHARBI HOIGALANI" and gave two slaps on the cheek of the complainant and a kick at the buttock and thereafter dragged him to the police station. It is alleged that the complainant suffered from bodily pain and was insulted and humiliated in presence of public. Hence the complaint under Sections 294/323, I. P. C.

( 3 ) THE S. D. J. M. after recording the initial statement of the complainant, conducted an enquiry under S. 202, Cr. P. C. Two witnesses were examined on the side of the complainant on 10-6-87. The S. D. J. M. thereafter on







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