K. L. SHRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dt. 6-2-1984 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Criminal Revision No. 114 of 1983 whereby allowing the revision filed by the non-applicant it has been held that cognizance of the offence under S. 323 of the I. P. C. against the non-applicant cannot be taken without prior sanction as required under S. 197 (1) of the Cr. P. C. 1973 (for short 'the Code' ).

( 2 ) CIRCUMSTANCES giving rise to the revision petition are these. During the 'simhashtha' of 1980 at Ujjain the non-applicant who belongs to Indian Police Service (I. P. S.) was Addl. Superintendent of Police, Ujjain. He was officer-in-charge of the Simhashtha fair. Under the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1969 a member of I. P. S. is removable from service with the sanction of the Central Govt.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, when on 26-4-80 at about 10. 30 p. m. he was returning on his motor cycle through the fair area on way to his residence, the non-applicant stopped him and questioned him as to why he had come on the prohibited route. The petitioner had a pass issued by the Superintendent of Police. He showed it to the non-applicant and told him that if he had to be stopped, he could have been stopped at Mullapura post so that he could go by the ring road. Upon this the non-applicant slapped him.

( 4 ) IN relation to the occurrence aforesaid, the petitioner on 28-4-80 filed a criminal complaint only u/s 323 of the I. P. C. against the non-applicant.

( 5 ) THE petitioner has stated in his complaint that after slapping him, the non-applicant had falsely stated that the former had caused an accident and would be 'prosecuted for the same and that he was later prosecuted by the Ujjain Police for rash and negligent driving but in the absence of any evidence, the prosecution terminated in his favour. His motor cycle had been seized and he had been detained.

( 6 ) ON the petitioner's complaint aforesaid, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under S. 323 of the I. P. C. against the non-applicant and process was issued.

( 7 ) AFTER the lapse of considerable period since the service of process on him, the non-applicant on 2-2-83 applied to the learned I Magistrate stating that in view of the provision embodied in S. 197 (1) of the Code, cognizance of the offence against him could not be taken without previous sanction of the Government. In this connection the decision in S. S. Dhanoa's, AIR 1981 SC 1395 may usefully be perused.

( 8 ) THE learned Magistrate, by the order dt. 16-8-1983 negatived the aforesaid contention based on want of sanction on the around that it has nowhere been stated in the application that at the relevant time the non-applicant was on duty or that what he did, he did in the course of his official duty.

( 9 ) THE order passed by the learned Magistrate was subjected to revision wherein the learned Additional Sessions Judge has passed the impugned order rejecting the complaint on the ground that what the non-applicant did, he did in connection with his duty and therefore, cognizance of the offence under S. 323 of the I. P. C. could not be taken without prior sanction as required under S. 197 (1) of the Code. In the absence of sanction u/s 197 of the Code court cannot pass any order of discharge or acquittal Nagraj's, AIR 1964 SC 269.

( 10 ) THE point for consideration is whether the impugned order deserves to be interfered with.

( 11 ) SECTION 197 (1) of the Code is not in terms of Section 96 of the IPC and it may be stated at the outset that the protection only of pre-condition of prior sanction for cognizance of offence against a public servant contemplated under S. 197 (1) of the Code is designed neither for each and every category of public servant nor in respect of each and every offence committed by him. The protection is available only to a person who is or was Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from

Click Here to Read the rest of this document