JUDGMENT

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. — Appellants have questioned legality of judgment rendered by a learned single Judge of the Orissa High Court rejecting the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the “Code”). Background facts essentially are as follows :

2. Grievances were made against six officers of the Orissa State Forest Department, the present appellants by the respondent (described hereinafter as the “complainant”) alleging that they had falsely implicated him for offences under the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 (in short ‘the Act’), the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 (in short “the Wildlife Act”) and being not content with the illegal acts, and that they seriously assaulted him thereby com¬mitting offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325, 506 and 386 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short “the IPC”). They also publicly humiliated him. The appellants questioned legality of the proceedings instituted by the complai¬nant in ICC Case No. 45/91 in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judi¬cial Magistrate, Baripada (in short “the S.D.J.M.”). Their primary stand was that the complaint was lodged as a counterblast and retaliatory measure because large quantity of ivory was seized from the complainant and he could not produce any material to justify the possession thereof.

3. According to the complainant he is a reputed pharmacist, and also a man of means and the owner of a cinema hall and producer of films. While on 27.2.1991 he was engaged in the professional work, the present appellants along with some police personnel entered into his clinic and arrested him alleg¬ing that some elephant tusks were recovered from his possession. He is a man having good reputation and standing in the society. There was absolutely no reason for appellants to apprehend that he would flee away from custody. Nevertheless he was made to walk on the bazar roads with hand-cuff. He was taken to the range office and was made to sit under a tree with the intention to give an impression to the general public that he was an illicit trader in elephant tusks. An advocate requested the officials to allow the complainant to take insulin since he was a diabetic patient, but the request was not heeded to. Complainant was treated as a criminal. On the next day he was produced before the SDJM before evening, he was not in a proper state of mind. Subsequent¬ly, after being released on bail he got himself medically exam¬ined and complaint was lodged after consulting lawyers. Appel¬lants questioned legality of the proceedings. According to them, they were officials to whom protection under Section 197 of the Code was applicable. In any event, the complaint was lodged with oblique motive and intention to get out of the illegalities committed and as a retaliatory measure. There was absolutely no material to take cognizance of the case. The acts of search, seizure and arrest were done in pursuance of their official duty and they cannot be proceeded against without necessary sanction as contemplated under Section 197 of the Code. The Orissa High Court at the first instance permitted the appellants to make submission before the SDJM. But the SDJM took the view that there was no necessity for sanction under Section 197 of the Code.

4. Matter was again brought before the High Court which by the impugned judgment was of the view that Section 197 of the Code has no application to the facts of the case.

5. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the complaint instituted by the respondent is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. The High Court has not taken note of the factual positions which were highlighted to substantiate the prayer for quashing of the proceedings in terms of Section 482 of the Code, particularly in the background of Section 197 thereof. The alleged occurrence took place on 27.2.1991. On the next day i.e. 28.2.1991 the accused was produced before the Magistrate