K K S MUHAMMED Vs. SASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.C. 184 of 1981 is a private complaint filed by the petitioner against three police constables and one head constable attached to the Parur Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 427 read with Section 34 or the Indian Penal Code, before the Judicial Magistrate of the I Class, Parur. On 26/2/1981, the employees of K.M.K. Hospital at North Parur owned by Dr. Sreenivasan were offering satyagraha near the Hospital in order to get some of their demands achieved. Petitioner was watching the same. It is his case that at about 6 p.m. the accused came in a jeep, manhandled, him destroyed the satyagraha shed, took him along with some of the satyagrahies to the Police Station by dragging them to the Jeep and again manhandled him at the Police Station. When the accused appeared pursuant to summons, they challenged maintainability of the complaint for want of sanction of Government under Section 191 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, by order dated 24.4.1981 accepted the objection, dropped the proceedings and released all the accused. The revision is by the complainant against the order.

(2.) The Chief Judicial Magistrate, by the impugned order, found that the offences alleged against the accused were committed while they were acting or purporting to, act in the discharge of their official duties. Notification SRO No. 61 165/A2/77 Home (A) Department Trivandrum dated 6/11/1977 issued by the Kerala, Government was relied on by the Magistrate to find that the accused are members of the Kerala State Police Force charged with maintenance of public order and hence by the notification they are also entitled to protection tinder Section 197(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. These findings are very seriously under challenge.

(3.) Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code reads: 197. Prosecution of Judges and public servants (1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty no court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction (a in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government; (b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time, of the ,alleged offence employed, in connection, with the affairs of a State, of the State Govern ment, (2) No Court shall take congnizance of any offence alleged to have been committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Union while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty; except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. (3) The State Government may, by notification, direct that the provisions of subsection (2) shall apply to such class or category of the members of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order as may be specified therein, where ever they may be serving; and thereupon the provisions of that sub-section will apply as if for the expression Central Government occuring therein the expression State Govern mentT were substituted. (4) The Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, may determine the person, by whom, the manner in which, and the offence or offences for which, the prosecution of such Judge, Magistrate or public servant is to be conducted, and may specify the court before which the trial is to be held.