Semantic Analysis by spaCy
Sanjeeb Kumar Marik Vs. Bal Gopal Mishra and Another
Decided On : Dec-22-2000
Court : Orissa
Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]Code Context$shops2 = $shops['topics'];$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Sanjeeb Kumar Marik Vs. Bal Gopal Mishra and Another Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'section 482', (int) 1 => 'the Indian Penal Code', (int) 2 => 'section 149', (int) 3 => 'section 34', (int) 4 => 'No 1', (int) 5 => 'section 202', (int) 6 => 'section 197', (int) 7 => 'section 129', (int) 8 => 'section 132', (int) 9 => 'section 132', (int) 10 => 'section 197', (int) 11 => 'section 197', (int) 12 => 'section 197', (int) 13 => 'section 197', (int) 14 => 'section 197' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'B.P. Das', (int) 1 => 'the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate', (int) 2 => 'him.2', (int) 3 => 'Parliament', (int) 4 => 'the Town Police Station', (int) 5 => 'G. R Case', (int) 6 => 'the Bolangir Town Police Station', (int) 7 => 'inter alia', (int) 8 => 'the S. P.', (int) 9 => 'the S. P. After', (int) 10 => 'S.D.J.M.', (int) 11 => 'Annexure-8:3', (int) 12 => 'Magistrate', (int) 13 => 'F.I.R. No', (int) 14 => 'Court', (int) 15 => 'the State Government', (int) 16 => 'CentralGovernment', (int) 17 => 'Court', (int) 18 => 'Magistrate', (int) 19 => 'Magistrate', (int) 20 => 'I. C. C' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1', (int) 1 => 'I. C. C. Case', (int) 2 => 'I. P. C.'', (int) 3 => 'Balgopal Mishra', (int) 4 => 'Bolangir Lok Sabha', (int) 5 => 'the S. P.', (int) 6 => 'D. B. Sethi', (int) 7 => 'S. I. of Police', (int) 8 => 'F. I. R No', (int) 9 => 'I. P. C.', (int) 10 => 'S. D. J. M.,', (int) 11 => 'i. e.', (int) 12 => 'F. I. R. N', (int) 13 => 'G. R. Case No', (int) 14 => 'I. P. C.', (int) 15 => 'S. P.', (int) 16 => 'the S. P.', (int) 17 => 'Narasingha Mishra', (int) 18 => 'G. R. Case No', (int) 19 => 'I. C. C. Case No', (int) 20 => 'S. D. J. M. Bolangir', (int) 21 => 'G. R. Case No', (int) 22 => 'I. P. C.', (int) 23 => 'G. R. Case No', (int) 24 => 'F. I. R. No', (int) 25 => 'Sanjib Marik', (int) 26 => 'S. P.', (int) 27 => 'F. I. R. No', (int) 28 => 'Kremjit Mohananda', (int) 29 => 'Mohanpani Kama', (int) 30 => 'O. L. R. 284', (int) 31 => 'Satyabadi Mallik', (int) 32 => 'S. D. J. M.,', (int) 33 => 'Misc' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '9', (int) 1 => '16', (int) 2 => '506/294', (int) 3 => '1', (int) 4 => '27-11-1989', (int) 5 => 'about 2.30', (int) 6 => 'One', (int) 7 => '214', (int) 8 => '143', (int) 9 => '294', (int) 10 => '336,/506', (int) 11 => '1', (int) 12 => '27-11-1989', (int) 13 => '1', (int) 14 => '216', (int) 15 => '547', (int) 16 => '294', (int) 17 => '506', (int) 18 => '1', (int) 19 => '1', (int) 20 => '1', (int) 21 => '1', (int) 22 => '1', (int) 23 => '547', (int) 24 => '1', (int) 25 => '10-2-1993', (int) 26 => '1', (int) 27 => '547', (int) 28 => '9', (int) 29 => '214', (int) 30 => '548', (int) 31 => '216', (int) 32 => '214', (int) 33 => '10-2-1993', (int) 34 => '3-6-1996', (int) 35 => 'two', (int) 36 => 'two' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Bolangir', (int) 1 => 'Bolangir', (int) 2 => 'Bolangir', (int) 3 => 'the F. I. R.', (int) 4 => 'F.I.R.', (int) 5 => 'Bolangir', (int) 6 => 'Oriya', (int) 7 => 'Cr', (int) 8 => 'Cr', (int) 9 => 'Cr', (int) 10 => 'Kartikeswar Nayak', (int) 11 => 'Cr', (int) 12 => 'Bolangir' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1993', (int) 1 => '27-11-1989', (int) 2 => 'the same day', (int) 3 => '27-11-1989', (int) 4 => '1989', (int) 5 => '3-9-1992', (int) 6 => '1989', (int) 7 => '1993', (int) 8 => '1989', (int) 9 => '506/294', (int) 10 => '27-11-1989', (int) 11 => '27-11-1989', (int) 12 => '27-11-1989', (int) 13 => 'the year 1989', (int) 14 => '1995', (int) 15 => '1994', (int) 16 => '1993', (int) 17 => 'quashed.10' ), 'FAC' => array( (int) 0 => 'the S. P. Bolangir' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'No.1', (int) 1 => 'The Criminal Misc' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'first' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '527266', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 129, 132, 197, 202 and 482; <a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 143, 149, 294, 323, 336, 426 and 506', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Misc. Case No. 3683 of 1996', 'appellant' => 'Sanjeeb Kumar Marik', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sanjeeb Kumar Marik Vs. Bal Gopal Mishra and Another', 'casenote' => 'Criminal - Cognizance - Sanction - Sections 294 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Petitioner a senior police officer charged under Sections 294 and 506 of IPC on filing of complaint by respondents - Trial Court took cognizance and issued process - Hence, present petition - Held, perusal of complaint petition indicates that petitioner was on official duty when incident took place and he was acting while discharging his official duty - Hence, no cognizance of alleged offence can be taken against petitioner without prior sanction of Government - Magistrate has not made any effort to see whether act complained of was committed while petitioner was discharging his official duty or not - Magistrate has passed impugned order taking cognizance against petitioner in mechanical manner at belated stage and without application of mind properly - Accordingly, impugned order taking cognizance against petitioner, cannot be sustained in eye of law and same is hereby quashed - Writ petition allowed - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 [C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 173(1) Proviso; [D. Biswas, Amitava Roy & I.A.Ansari, JJ] Appeal without statutory deposit but within limitation/or extended period of limitation Maintainability - Held, If the provision of a statute speaks of entertainment of appeal, it denotes that the appeal cannot be admitted to consideration unless other requirements are complied with. The provision of sub-section (1) of Section 173 permits filing of an appeal against an award within 90 days with a rider in the first proviso that such appeal filed cannot be entertained unless the statutory deposit is made. The period of limitation is applicable only to the filing of the appeal and not to the deposit to be made. It, therefore, appears that an appeal filed under Section 173 cannot be entertained i.e. cannot be admitted for consideration unless the statutory deposit is made and for this purpose the Court has the discretion either to grant time to make the deposit or not. No formal order condoning the delay is necessary, an order of adjournment would suffice. The provisions of limitation embodied in the substantive provision of the sub-section (1) of Section 173 of the Act does not extend to the provision relating to the deposit of statutory amount as embodies in the first proviso. Therefore an appeal filed within the period of limitation or within the extended period of limitation, cannot be admitted for hearing on merit unless the statutory deposit is made either with the memo of appeal or on such date as may be permitted by the Court. No specific order condoning any delay for the purpose of deposit under first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 173 is necessary. [New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v Md. Makubur Rahman, 1993 (2) GLR 430 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v Smt Rita Devi, 1997(2) GLT 406, Approved. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v Birendra Mohan De, 1995 (2) Gau LT 218 (DB) and Union of India v Smt Gita Banik, 1996 (2) GLT 246, are not good law]. - is to guard' against vexatious proceedings against servants and to secure the well-considered opinion of the superior authority 'before a prosecution is launched against them. But there has been a unanimity of judicial authorities to the effect that if there is a coherent nexus between the act complained of as an offence and the duty of the public servant, sanction becomes necessary even if such act is in excess of his exact duty. well established. After these two pre-conditions are satisfied, a further enquiry is necessary to be made as to whether the alleged offence was committed by the public servant while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. C R 326, while dealing with a case where a police officer was alleged to have, taken the complainant into custody and thereafter the complainant was alleged to have been assaulted, tortured, and detained in the lock-up by the concerned officer, held that the acts complained of against the police officer was undoubtedly committed in course of discharge of: Hence, in my view, no cognizance of the alleged offence can be taken against the petitioner without prior sanction of the Government That apart, the learned Magistrate has not made any effort to see whether the act complained of was committedwhile the petitioner was discharging his official duty or not.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Kartikeswar Nayak v. Satyabadi Mallik;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' M/s S.K. Padhi and ;D. Mohapatra, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Mr. Sisir Das, Adv.', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2000-12-22', 'deposition' => 'Crl. misc. case allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.P. Das, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.P. Das, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner in this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure call in question the legality of the order dated 9-7-1996 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bolangir, in I. C. C. Case No. 16 of 1993 taking cognizance of the offence under sections 506/294 of the Indian Penal Code ('I. P. C.', in short) and issuing process against him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts leading to this application are as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Opposite party No. 1, Balgopal Mishra, on being declared elected as Member of Parliament of Bolangir Lok Sabha constituency took out a victory procession on 27-11-1989 in Bolangir town. At about 2.30 p. m. when the processionists were passing in front of the residence of the Superintendent of Police, they gave provocative slogans, pelted stones and abused the S. P. in. filthy languages. The police force which was accompanying the procession took reasonable steps to disperse the unruly crowd. One D. B. Sethi, S. I. of Police of Bolangir Town P. S., who was accompanying the process along with other police personnels lodged a report about the aforesaid incident at the Town Police Station which was registered as F. I. R No. 214 dated 27-11-1989, corresponding to G. R Case No 548 of 1989, under sections 143, 294, 336,/506 read with section 149, I. P. C. (Annexure-1), After due investigation, chargesheet has been filed against opposite party No. 1 vide Annexure-3, and the case is pending for trial in the court of the learned S. D. J. M., Bolangir.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">On the same day, i. e., 27-11-1989, opposite party No. 1 also lodged a report at the Bolangir Town Police Station, whichwas registered as F. I. R. N/o. 216 dated 27-11-1989, corresponding to G. R. Case No. 547 of 1989, under sections 294, 506, 426/ 323 read with section 34, I. P. C. (Annexute-2), against the present petitioner, who was then the S. P. Bolangir and some other police officers, on the allegation, inter alia, that the petitioner along with other police personnels abused the processionists. The further allegation is that while opposite party No 1 was going in the procession in front of the office of the S. P. a group of armed police attacked the processionists and started assaulting them indiscriminately as a result of which the people, who were going in the procession, started running away and finding the S. P. directing the police to chase opposite party No. 1, his jeep driver drove away his jeep to the house of Shri Narasingha Mishra, Advocate. His jeep was chased by the armed police men in a police van and a jeep under the leadership of S. P., opposite party No. 1 also found the armed police men and the S. P. with other armed police officers got down from their vehicles and chased the people, assaulted them, damaged the cycles and other properties and aimed fireguns towards the public. He also heard a police officer shouting at the top of his voice and uttering filthy languages and opposite party No. 1 was told that the person who was uttering filthy languages and shouting at him was the voice of the present petitioner. It is further alleged in the F. I. R. that the petitioner chased opposite party No. 1 from his residence to the house of Shri Narasingha Mishra to kill him and had his jeep not rushed inside the house of said Narasingha Mishra, he would have been killed by the S. P. After the police left, the D. I. G. visited the spot. Opposite party No. 1 was also told that the S. P. along with armed police was moving to kill him and the people's representatives. The matter was investigated by the police and after investigation, final form had been submitted on 3-9-1992. Against the final report submitted by the police in the aforesaid G. R. Case No. 547 of 1989, opposite party No. 1 has filed a protest petition on 10-2-1993 and the same has been registered as I. C. C. Case No. 16 of 1993 on the file of the learned S. D. J. M. Bolangir, vide Annexure-6. The aforesaid complaint case has been filed against the present petitioner and some other police officers and the initial statement of the complainant--opposite party No. 1 and- statement of other witnesses were recorded under section 202, Cr. P. C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">On going through the complaint petition; the initial statement of the complainant and the statement of other witnesses as also the records of G. R. Case No. 547 of 1989, the learned S.D.J.M. came to hold that there was prima facie case against the petitioner for which cognizance under sections 506/294. I. P. C. has been taken by order dated 9-7-1996, vide Annexure-8:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the incident occurred, the petitioner and other police officers were on duty to maintain law and order and the action taken during the incident was in due discharge of their official duty, and, therefore, the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance without prior sanction under section 197, Cr. P. C. That apart from the F.I.R. lodged by the police officer vide F.I.R. No. 214 dated 27-11-1989 (Annexurer-1) corresponding: to G. R. Case No. 548 of 1939, it appears that the police officers were dispersing the mob and they were acting while discharging their duties under section 129, Cr. P. C. and, therefore, they are protected under section 132, Cr. P. C. as they were maintaining public order/law and order situation. The complaint petition so fled by the complainant in Annexure-6 corroborates the fact that there was a victory procession and also fortifies the stand of the petitioner that the police officers in due discharge of their official duty were maintaining law and order situation when the procession was passing through the streets of Bolangir town. In the F.I.R. being F. I. R. No. 216 dated 27-11-1989 filed by the complainant, it is stated that 'I also heard police officers shouting on the top of his voice, uttering filthy languages saying.......... (obscene language in Oriya). I was told that the voice was that of Sanjib Marik, S. P., Bolangir.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On perusal of the allegations made by the complainant in his F. I. R. as also in the complaint petition, it seems to be developed when he describes in the complaint petition that 'On the way and at the time of chasing, the accused person No.1 was shouting at the top of his voice and abusing the complainant in filthy languages..................'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner was on duty and F. I. R. No. 214 dated 27-11-1989 indicates that the mob was being dispersed. Hence, I have no hesitation to hold that the police officer is protected under section 132, Cr. P. C. So, for taking cognizance against the petitioner, sanction is necessary as envisaged by section 197, Cr. P. C. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. That apart, the occurrence took place in the year 1989 and protest petition/ complaint petition was registered on 10-2-1993. Several adjournments were taken by the complaint and ultimately initial statement of the complainant was recorded on 3-6-1996. This indicates that the matter was delayed only to harass a public officer who was discharging his public duty when the occurrence had taken place.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. 'The object of section 197, Cr. P. C. is to guard' against vexatious proceedings against servants and to secure the well-considered opinion of the superior authority 'before a prosecution is launched against them. To find out as to what is the true and correct meaning of the phrase 'acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty'. Courts have considered different situations and no hard and fast rule has been laid down. It would essentially depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. But there has been a unanimity of judicial authorities to the effect that if there is a coherent nexus between the act complained of as an offence and the duty of the public servant, sanction becomes necessary even if such act is in excess of his exact duty. In the decision reported in the case of Kremjit Mohananda v. Mohanpani Kama and another (1995 (II) O. L. R. 284), this Court held that the principle embodied under section 197, Cr. P. C. well established. Before the 'provision of section 197, Cr. P. C. is invoked, two conditions must be first fulfilled (i) the public servant is not removable from his office except by or with the sanction of the State Government or the CentralGovernment, as the case may be, and (ii) he is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him. After these two pre-conditions are satisfied, a further enquiry is necessary to be made as to whether the alleged offence was committed by the public servant while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. It is in this connection that the expression 'purporting to act in the discharge of official duty' assumes importance. This expression is neither to be too narrowly interpreted nor too widely, Ultimately this Court held that what comes under the protective umbrella is an act constituting an offence, which directly or reasonably connects with his official duty. Protection of section 197 does not extend to acts done purely in a private capacity by public servant. This Court in Kartikeswar Nayak v. Satyabadi Mallik, reported in (1994) 7 O. C R 326, while dealing with a case where a police officer was alleged to have, taken the complainant into custody and thereafter the complainant was alleged to have been assaulted, tortured, and detained in the lock-up by the concerned officer, held that the acts complained of against the police officer was undoubtedly committed in course of discharge of: his official duty in arresting the complainant and producing him before the Court and even if any excess was committed in discharge of his duty, that excess was plainly in relation to his official duty in the sense that it was professed to be so and it was meant to convey to the mind of the complainant that he was acting under the authority of his office. Even if an excess was committed while effecting or continuing such arrest, it cannot be said that it was completely divorced from his duties. Accordingly, it was held that prior sanction under section 197, Cr. P. C was necessary.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. A bare perusal of the complaint petition indicates that the petitioner was on official duty when the incident took place and he was acting while discharging his official duty. Hence, in my view, no cognizance of the alleged offence can be taken against the petitioner without prior sanction of the Government That apart, the learned Magistrate has not made any effort to see whether the act complained of was committedwhile the petitioner was discharging his official duty or not. In my opinion, the learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order taking cognizance against the petitioner in a mechanical manner at a belated stage and without application of mind properly. What had been done by the police officer appears to have been done while discharging or purporting to discharge his official duties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Accordingly, the impugned order taking cognizance against the petitioner in I. C. C, Case No. 16 of 1993 on the file of the learned S. D. J. M., Bolangir, cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same is hereby quashed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Crl. Misc. Case allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '91(2001)CLT411; 2001(I)OLR260', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Bal Gopal Mishra and Another', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '527266' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Sanjeeb Kumar Marik Vs. Bal Gopal Mishra and Another Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'section 482', (int) 1 => 'the Indian Penal Code', (int) 2 => 'section 149', (int) 3 => 'section 34', (int) 4 => 'No 1', (int) 5 => 'section 202', (int) 6 => 'section 197', (int) 7 => 'section 129', (int) 8 => 'section 132', (int) 9 => 'section 132', (int) 10 => 'section 197', (int) 11 => 'section 197', (int) 12 => 'section 197', (int) 13 => 'section 197', (int) 14 => 'section 197' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'B.P. Das', (int) 1 => 'the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate', (int) 2 => 'him.2', (int) 3 => 'Parliament', (int) 4 => 'the Town Police Station', (int) 5 => 'G. R Case', (int) 6 => 'the Bolangir Town Police Station', (int) 7 => 'inter alia', (int) 8 => 'the S. P.', (int) 9 => 'the S. P. After', (int) 10 => 'S.D.J.M.', (int) 11 => 'Annexure-8:3', (int) 12 => 'Magistrate', (int) 13 => 'F.I.R. No', (int) 14 => 'Court', (int) 15 => 'the State Government', (int) 16 => 'CentralGovernment', (int) 17 => 'Court', (int) 18 => 'Magistrate', (int) 19 => 'Magistrate', (int) 20 => 'I. C. C' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1', (int) 1 => 'I. C. C. Case', (int) 2 => 'I. P. C.'', (int) 3 => 'Balgopal Mishra', (int) 4 => 'Bolangir Lok Sabha', (int) 5 => 'the S. P.', (int) 6 => 'D. B. Sethi', (int) 7 => 'S. I. of Police', (int) 8 => 'F. I. R No', (int) 9 => 'I. P. C.', (int) 10 => 'S. D. J. M.,', (int) 11 => 'i. e.', (int) 12 => 'F. I. R. N', (int) 13 => 'G. R. Case No', (int) 14 => 'I. P. C.', (int) 15 => 'S. P.', (int) 16 => 'the S. P.', (int) 17 => 'Narasingha Mishra', (int) 18 => 'G. R. Case No', (int) 19 => 'I. C. C. Case No', (int) 20 => 'S. D. J. M. Bolangir', (int) 21 => 'G. R. Case No', (int) 22 => 'I. P. C.', (int) 23 => 'G. R. Case No', (int) 24 => 'F. I. R. No', (int) 25 => 'Sanjib Marik', (int) 26 => 'S. P.', (int) 27 => 'F. I. R. No', (int) 28 => 'Kremjit Mohananda', (int) 29 => 'Mohanpani Kama', (int) 30 => 'O. L. R. 284', (int) 31 => 'Satyabadi Mallik', (int) 32 => 'S. D. J. M.,', (int) 33 => 'Misc' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '9', (int) 1 => '16', (int) 2 => '506/294', (int) 3 => '1', (int) 4 => '27-11-1989', (int) 5 => 'about 2.30', (int) 6 => 'One', (int) 7 => '214', (int) 8 => '143', (int) 9 => '294', (int) 10 => '336,/506', (int) 11 => '1', (int) 12 => '27-11-1989', (int) 13 => '1', (int) 14 => '216', (int) 15 => '547', (int) 16 => '294', (int) 17 => '506', (int) 18 => '1', (int) 19 => '1', (int) 20 => '1', (int) 21 => '1', (int) 22 => '1', (int) 23 => '547', (int) 24 => '1', (int) 25 => '10-2-1993', (int) 26 => '1', (int) 27 => '547', (int) 28 => '9', (int) 29 => '214', (int) 30 => '548', (int) 31 => '216', (int) 32 => '214', (int) 33 => '10-2-1993', (int) 34 => '3-6-1996', (int) 35 => 'two', (int) 36 => 'two' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Bolangir', (int) 1 => 'Bolangir', (int) 2 => 'Bolangir', (int) 3 => 'the F. I. R.', (int) 4 => 'F.I.R.', (int) 5 => 'Bolangir', (int) 6 => 'Oriya', (int) 7 => 'Cr', (int) 8 => 'Cr', (int) 9 => 'Cr', (int) 10 => 'Kartikeswar Nayak', (int) 11 => 'Cr', (int) 12 => 'Bolangir' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1993', (int) 1 => '27-11-1989', (int) 2 => 'the same day', (int) 3 => '27-11-1989', (int) 4 => '1989', (int) 5 => '3-9-1992', (int) 6 => '1989', (int) 7 => '1993', (int) 8 => '1989', (int) 9 => '506/294', (int) 10 => '27-11-1989', (int) 11 => '27-11-1989', (int) 12 => '27-11-1989', (int) 13 => 'the year 1989', (int) 14 => '1995', (int) 15 => '1994', (int) 16 => '1993', (int) 17 => 'quashed.10' ), 'FAC' => array( (int) 0 => 'the S. P. Bolangir' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'No.1', (int) 1 => 'The Criminal Misc' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'first' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '527266', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 129, 132, 197, 202 and 482; <a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 143, 149, 294, 323, 336, 426 and 506', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Misc. Case No. 3683 of 1996', 'appellant' => 'Sanjeeb Kumar Marik', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sanjeeb Kumar Marik Vs. Bal Gopal Mishra and Another', 'casenote' => 'Criminal - Cognizance - Sanction - Sections 294 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Petitioner a senior police officer charged under Sections 294 and 506 of IPC on filing of complaint by respondents - Trial Court took cognizance and issued process - Hence, present petition - Held, perusal of complaint petition indicates that petitioner was on official duty when incident took place and he was acting while discharging his official duty - Hence, no cognizance of alleged offence can be taken against petitioner without prior sanction of Government - Magistrate has not made any effort to see whether act complained of was committed while petitioner was discharging his official duty or not - Magistrate has passed impugned order taking cognizance against petitioner in mechanical manner at belated stage and without application of mind properly - Accordingly, impugned order taking cognizance against petitioner, cannot be sustained in eye of law and same is hereby quashed - Writ petition allowed - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 [C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 173(1) Proviso; [D. Biswas, Amitava Roy & I.A.Ansari, JJ] Appeal without statutory deposit but within limitation/or extended period of limitation Maintainability - Held, If the provision of a statute speaks of entertainment of appeal, it denotes that the appeal cannot be admitted to consideration unless other requirements are complied with. The provision of sub-section (1) of Section 173 permits filing of an appeal against an award within 90 days with a rider in the first proviso that such appeal filed cannot be entertained unless the statutory deposit is made. The period of limitation is applicable only to the filing of the appeal and not to the deposit to be made. It, therefore, appears that an appeal filed under Section 173 cannot be entertained i.e. cannot be admitted for consideration unless the statutory deposit is made and for this purpose the Court has the discretion either to grant time to make the deposit or not. No formal order condoning the delay is necessary, an order of adjournment would suffice. The provisions of limitation embodied in the substantive provision of the sub-section (1) of Section 173 of the Act does not extend to the provision relating to the deposit of statutory amount as embodies in the first proviso. Therefore an appeal filed within the period of limitation or within the extended period of limitation, cannot be admitted for hearing on merit unless the statutory deposit is made either with the memo of appeal or on such date as may be permitted by the Court. No specific order condoning any delay for the purpose of deposit under first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 173 is necessary. [New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v Md. Makubur Rahman, 1993 (2) GLR 430 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v Smt Rita Devi, 1997(2) GLT 406, Approved. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v Birendra Mohan De, 1995 (2) Gau LT 218 (DB) and Union of India v Smt Gita Banik, 1996 (2) GLT 246, are not good law]. - is to guard' against vexatious proceedings against servants and to secure the well-considered opinion of the superior authority 'before a prosecution is launched against them. But there has been a unanimity of judicial authorities to the effect that if there is a coherent nexus between the act complained of as an offence and the duty of the public servant, sanction becomes necessary even if such act is in excess of his exact duty. well established. After these two pre-conditions are satisfied, a further enquiry is necessary to be made as to whether the alleged offence was committed by the public servant while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. C R 326, while dealing with a case where a police officer was alleged to have, taken the complainant into custody and thereafter the complainant was alleged to have been assaulted, tortured, and detained in the lock-up by the concerned officer, held that the acts complained of against the police officer was undoubtedly committed in course of discharge of: Hence, in my view, no cognizance of the alleged offence can be taken against the petitioner without prior sanction of the Government That apart, the learned Magistrate has not made any effort to see whether the act complained of was committedwhile the petitioner was discharging his official duty or not.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Kartikeswar Nayak v. Satyabadi Mallik;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' M/s S.K. Padhi and ;D. Mohapatra, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Mr. Sisir Das, Adv.', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2000-12-22', 'deposition' => 'Crl. misc. case allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.P. Das, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.P. Das, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner in this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure call in question the legality of the order dated 9-7-1996 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bolangir, in I. C. C. Case No. 16 of 1993 taking cognizance of the offence under sections 506/294 of the Indian Penal Code ('I. P. C.', in short) and issuing process against him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts leading to this application are as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Opposite party No. 1, Balgopal Mishra, on being declared elected as Member of Parliament of Bolangir Lok Sabha constituency took out a victory procession on 27-11-1989 in Bolangir town. At about 2.30 p. m. when the processionists were passing in front of the residence of the Superintendent of Police, they gave provocative slogans, pelted stones and abused the S. P. in. filthy languages. The police force which was accompanying the procession took reasonable steps to disperse the unruly crowd. One D. B. Sethi, S. I. of Police of Bolangir Town P. S., who was accompanying the process along with other police personnels lodged a report about the aforesaid incident at the Town Police Station which was registered as F. I. R No. 214 dated 27-11-1989, corresponding to G. R Case No 548 of 1989, under sections 143, 294, 336,/506 read with section 149, I. P. C. (Annexure-1), After due investigation, chargesheet has been filed against opposite party No. 1 vide Annexure-3, and the case is pending for trial in the court of the learned S. D. J. M., Bolangir.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">On the same day, i. e., 27-11-1989, opposite party No. 1 also lodged a report at the Bolangir Town Police Station, whichwas registered as F. I. R. N/o. 216 dated 27-11-1989, corresponding to G. R. Case No. 547 of 1989, under sections 294, 506, 426/ 323 read with section 34, I. P. C. (Annexute-2), against the present petitioner, who was then the S. P. Bolangir and some other police officers, on the allegation, inter alia, that the petitioner along with other police personnels abused the processionists. The further allegation is that while opposite party No 1 was going in the procession in front of the office of the S. P. a group of armed police attacked the processionists and started assaulting them indiscriminately as a result of which the people, who were going in the procession, started running away and finding the S. P. directing the police to chase opposite party No. 1, his jeep driver drove away his jeep to the house of Shri Narasingha Mishra, Advocate. His jeep was chased by the armed police men in a police van and a jeep under the leadership of S. P., opposite party No. 1 also found the armed police men and the S. P. with other armed police officers got down from their vehicles and chased the people, assaulted them, damaged the cycles and other properties and aimed fireguns towards the public. He also heard a police officer shouting at the top of his voice and uttering filthy languages and opposite party No. 1 was told that the person who was uttering filthy languages and shouting at him was the voice of the present petitioner. It is further alleged in the F. I. R. that the petitioner chased opposite party No. 1 from his residence to the house of Shri Narasingha Mishra to kill him and had his jeep not rushed inside the house of said Narasingha Mishra, he would have been killed by the S. P. After the police left, the D. I. G. visited the spot. Opposite party No. 1 was also told that the S. P. along with armed police was moving to kill him and the people's representatives. The matter was investigated by the police and after investigation, final form had been submitted on 3-9-1992. Against the final report submitted by the police in the aforesaid G. R. Case No. 547 of 1989, opposite party No. 1 has filed a protest petition on 10-2-1993 and the same has been registered as I. C. C. Case No. 16 of 1993 on the file of the learned S. D. J. M. Bolangir, vide Annexure-6. The aforesaid complaint case has been filed against the present petitioner and some other police officers and the initial statement of the complainant--opposite party No. 1 and- statement of other witnesses were recorded under section 202, Cr. P. C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">On going through the complaint petition; the initial statement of the complainant and the statement of other witnesses as also the records of G. R. Case No. 547 of 1989, the learned S.D.J.M. came to hold that there was prima facie case against the petitioner for which cognizance under sections 506/294. I. P. C. has been taken by order dated 9-7-1996, vide Annexure-8:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the incident occurred, the petitioner and other police officers were on duty to maintain law and order and the action taken during the incident was in due discharge of their official duty, and, therefore, the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance without prior sanction under section 197, Cr. P. C. That apart from the F.I.R. lodged by the police officer vide F.I.R. No. 214 dated 27-11-1989 (Annexurer-1) corresponding: to G. R. Case No. 548 of 1939, it appears that the police officers were dispersing the mob and they were acting while discharging their duties under section 129, Cr. P. C. and, therefore, they are protected under section 132, Cr. P. C. as they were maintaining public order/law and order situation. The complaint petition so fled by the complainant in Annexure-6 corroborates the fact that there was a victory procession and also fortifies the stand of the petitioner that the police officers in due discharge of their official duty were maintaining law and order situation when the procession was passing through the streets of Bolangir town. In the F.I.R. being F. I. R. No. 216 dated 27-11-1989 filed by the complainant, it is stated that 'I also heard police officers shouting on the top of his voice, uttering filthy languages saying.......... (obscene language in Oriya). I was told that the voice was that of Sanjib Marik, S. P., Bolangir.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On perusal of the allegations made by the complainant in his F. I. R. as also in the complaint petition, it seems to be developed when he describes in the complaint petition that 'On the way and at the time of chasing, the accused person No.1 was shouting at the top of his voice and abusing the complainant in filthy languages..................'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner was on duty and F. I. R. No. 214 dated 27-11-1989 indicates that the mob was being dispersed. Hence, I have no hesitation to hold that the police officer is protected under section 132, Cr. P. C. So, for taking cognizance against the petitioner, sanction is necessary as envisaged by section 197, Cr. P. C. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. That apart, the occurrence took place in the year 1989 and protest petition/ complaint petition was registered on 10-2-1993. Several adjournments were taken by the complaint and ultimately initial statement of the complainant was recorded on 3-6-1996. This indicates that the matter was delayed only to harass a public officer who was discharging his public duty when the occurrence had taken place.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. 'The object of section 197, Cr. P. C. is to guard' against vexatious proceedings against servants and to secure the well-considered opinion of the superior authority 'before a prosecution is launched against them. To find out as to what is the true and correct meaning of the phrase 'acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty'. Courts have considered different situations and no hard and fast rule has been laid down. It would essentially depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. But there has been a unanimity of judicial authorities to the effect that if there is a coherent nexus between the act complained of as an offence and the duty of the public servant, sanction becomes necessary even if such act is in excess of his exact duty. In the decision reported in the case of Kremjit Mohananda v. Mohanpani Kama and another (1995 (II) O. L. R. 284), this Court held that the principle embodied under section 197, Cr. P. C. well established. Before the 'provision of section 197, Cr. P. C. is invoked, two conditions must be first fulfilled (i) the public servant is not removable from his office except by or with the sanction of the State Government or the CentralGovernment, as the case may be, and (ii) he is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him. After these two pre-conditions are satisfied, a further enquiry is necessary to be made as to whether the alleged offence was committed by the public servant while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. It is in this connection that the expression 'purporting to act in the discharge of official duty' assumes importance. This expression is neither to be too narrowly interpreted nor too widely, Ultimately this Court held that what comes under the protective umbrella is an act constituting an offence, which directly or reasonably connects with his official duty. Protection of section 197 does not extend to acts done purely in a private capacity by public servant. This Court in Kartikeswar Nayak v. Satyabadi Mallik, reported in (1994) 7 O. C R 326, while dealing with a case where a police officer was alleged to have, taken the complainant into custody and thereafter the complainant was alleged to have been assaulted, tortured, and detained in the lock-up by the concerned officer, held that the acts complained of against the police officer was undoubtedly committed in course of discharge of: his official duty in arresting the complainant and producing him before the Court and even if any excess was committed in discharge of his duty, that excess was plainly in relation to his official duty in the sense that it was professed to be so and it was meant to convey to the mind of the complainant that he was acting under the authority of his office. Even if an excess was committed while effecting or continuing such arrest, it cannot be said that it was completely divorced from his duties. Accordingly, it was held that prior sanction under section 197, Cr. P. C was necessary.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. A bare perusal of the complaint petition indicates that the petitioner was on official duty when the incident took place and he was acting while discharging his official duty. Hence, in my view, no cognizance of the alleged offence can be taken against the petitioner without prior sanction of the Government That apart, the learned Magistrate has not made any effort to see whether the act complained of was committedwhile the petitioner was discharging his official duty or not. In my opinion, the learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order taking cognizance against the petitioner in a mechanical manner at a belated stage and without application of mind properly. What had been done by the police officer appears to have been done while discharging or purporting to discharge his official duties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Accordingly, the impugned order taking cognizance against the petitioner in I. C. C, Case No. 16 of 1993 on the file of the learned S. D. J. M., Bolangir, cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same is hereby quashed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Crl. Misc. Case allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '91(2001)CLT411; 2001(I)OLR260', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Bal Gopal Mishra and Another', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '527266' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]Code Context//$shops = $shops['entities'];foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Sanjeeb Kumar Marik Vs. Bal Gopal Mishra and Another Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'section 482', (int) 1 => 'the Indian Penal Code', (int) 2 => 'section 149', (int) 3 => 'section 34', (int) 4 => 'No 1', (int) 5 => 'section 202', (int) 6 => 'section 197', (int) 7 => 'section 129', (int) 8 => 'section 132', (int) 9 => 'section 132', (int) 10 => 'section 197', (int) 11 => 'section 197', (int) 12 => 'section 197', (int) 13 => 'section 197', (int) 14 => 'section 197' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'B.P. Das', (int) 1 => 'the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate', (int) 2 => 'him.2', (int) 3 => 'Parliament', (int) 4 => 'the Town Police Station', (int) 5 => 'G. R Case', (int) 6 => 'the Bolangir Town Police Station', (int) 7 => 'inter alia', (int) 8 => 'the S. P.', (int) 9 => 'the S. P. After', (int) 10 => 'S.D.J.M.', (int) 11 => 'Annexure-8:3', (int) 12 => 'Magistrate', (int) 13 => 'F.I.R. No', (int) 14 => 'Court', (int) 15 => 'the State Government', (int) 16 => 'CentralGovernment', (int) 17 => 'Court', (int) 18 => 'Magistrate', (int) 19 => 'Magistrate', (int) 20 => 'I. C. C' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1', (int) 1 => 'I. C. C. Case', (int) 2 => 'I. P. C.'', (int) 3 => 'Balgopal Mishra', (int) 4 => 'Bolangir Lok Sabha', (int) 5 => 'the S. P.', (int) 6 => 'D. B. Sethi', (int) 7 => 'S. I. of Police', (int) 8 => 'F. I. R No', (int) 9 => 'I. P. C.', (int) 10 => 'S. D. J. M.,', (int) 11 => 'i. e.', (int) 12 => 'F. I. R. N', (int) 13 => 'G. R. Case No', (int) 14 => 'I. P. C.', (int) 15 => 'S. P.', (int) 16 => 'the S. P.', (int) 17 => 'Narasingha Mishra', (int) 18 => 'G. R. Case No', (int) 19 => 'I. C. C. Case No', (int) 20 => 'S. D. J. M. Bolangir', (int) 21 => 'G. R. Case No', (int) 22 => 'I. P. C.', (int) 23 => 'G. R. Case No', (int) 24 => 'F. I. R. No', (int) 25 => 'Sanjib Marik', (int) 26 => 'S. P.', (int) 27 => 'F. I. R. No', (int) 28 => 'Kremjit Mohananda', (int) 29 => 'Mohanpani Kama', (int) 30 => 'O. L. R. 284', (int) 31 => 'Satyabadi Mallik', (int) 32 => 'S. D. J. M.,', (int) 33 => 'Misc' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '9', (int) 1 => '16', (int) 2 => '506/294', (int) 3 => '1', (int) 4 => '27-11-1989', (int) 5 => 'about 2.30', (int) 6 => 'One', (int) 7 => '214', (int) 8 => '143', (int) 9 => '294', (int) 10 => '336,/506', (int) 11 => '1', (int) 12 => '27-11-1989', (int) 13 => '1', (int) 14 => '216', (int) 15 => '547', (int) 16 => '294', (int) 17 => '506', (int) 18 => '1', (int) 19 => '1', (int) 20 => '1', (int) 21 => '1', (int) 22 => '1', (int) 23 => '547', (int) 24 => '1', (int) 25 => '10-2-1993', (int) 26 => '1', (int) 27 => '547', (int) 28 => '9', (int) 29 => '214', (int) 30 => '548', (int) 31 => '216', (int) 32 => '214', (int) 33 => '10-2-1993', (int) 34 => '3-6-1996', (int) 35 => 'two', (int) 36 => 'two' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Bolangir', (int) 1 => 'Bolangir', (int) 2 => 'Bolangir', (int) 3 => 'the F. I. R.', (int) 4 => 'F.I.R.', (int) 5 => 'Bolangir', (int) 6 => 'Oriya', (int) 7 => 'Cr', (int) 8 => 'Cr', (int) 9 => 'Cr', (int) 10 => 'Kartikeswar Nayak', (int) 11 => 'Cr', (int) 12 => 'Bolangir' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1993', (int) 1 => '27-11-1989', (int) 2 => 'the same day', (int) 3 => '27-11-1989', (int) 4 => '1989', (int) 5 => '3-9-1992', (int) 6 => '1989', (int) 7 => '1993', (int) 8 => '1989', (int) 9 => '506/294', (int) 10 => '27-11-1989', (int) 11 => '27-11-1989', (int) 12 => '27-11-1989', (int) 13 => 'the year 1989', (int) 14 => '1995', (int) 15 => '1994', (int) 16 => '1993', (int) 17 => 'quashed.10' ), 'FAC' => array( (int) 0 => 'the S. P. Bolangir' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'No.1', (int) 1 => 'The Criminal Misc' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'first' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '527266', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 129, 132, 197, 202 and 482; <a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 143, 149, 294, 323, 336, 426 and 506', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Misc. Case No. 3683 of 1996', 'appellant' => 'Sanjeeb Kumar Marik', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sanjeeb Kumar Marik Vs. Bal Gopal Mishra and Another', 'casenote' => 'Criminal - Cognizance - Sanction - Sections 294 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Petitioner a senior police officer charged under Sections 294 and 506 of IPC on filing of complaint by respondents - Trial Court took cognizance and issued process - Hence, present petition - Held, perusal of complaint petition indicates that petitioner was on official duty when incident took place and he was acting while discharging his official duty - Hence, no cognizance of alleged offence can be taken against petitioner without prior sanction of Government - Magistrate has not made any effort to see whether act complained of was committed while petitioner was discharging his official duty or not - Magistrate has passed impugned order taking cognizance against petitioner in mechanical manner at belated stage and without application of mind properly - Accordingly, impugned order taking cognizance against petitioner, cannot be sustained in eye of law and same is hereby quashed - Writ petition allowed - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 [C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 173(1) Proviso; [D. Biswas, Amitava Roy & I.A.Ansari, JJ] Appeal without statutory deposit but within limitation/or extended period of limitation Maintainability - Held, If the provision of a statute speaks of entertainment of appeal, it denotes that the appeal cannot be admitted to consideration unless other requirements are complied with. The provision of sub-section (1) of Section 173 permits filing of an appeal against an award within 90 days with a rider in the first proviso that such appeal filed cannot be entertained unless the statutory deposit is made. The period of limitation is applicable only to the filing of the appeal and not to the deposit to be made. It, therefore, appears that an appeal filed under Section 173 cannot be entertained i.e. cannot be admitted for consideration unless the statutory deposit is made and for this purpose the Court has the discretion either to grant time to make the deposit or not. No formal order condoning the delay is necessary, an order of adjournment would suffice. The provisions of limitation embodied in the substantive provision of the sub-section (1) of Section 173 of the Act does not extend to the provision relating to the deposit of statutory amount as embodies in the first proviso. Therefore an appeal filed within the period of limitation or within the extended period of limitation, cannot be admitted for hearing on merit unless the statutory deposit is made either with the memo of appeal or on such date as may be permitted by the Court. No specific order condoning any delay for the purpose of deposit under first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 173 is necessary. [New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v Md. Makubur Rahman, 1993 (2) GLR 430 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v Smt Rita Devi, 1997(2) GLT 406, Approved. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v Birendra Mohan De, 1995 (2) Gau LT 218 (DB) and Union of India v Smt Gita Banik, 1996 (2) GLT 246, are not good law]. - is to guard' against vexatious proceedings against servants and to secure the well-considered opinion of the superior authority 'before a prosecution is launched against them. But there has been a unanimity of judicial authorities to the effect that if there is a coherent nexus between the act complained of as an offence and the duty of the public servant, sanction becomes necessary even if such act is in excess of his exact duty. well established. After these two pre-conditions are satisfied, a further enquiry is necessary to be made as to whether the alleged offence was committed by the public servant while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. C R 326, while dealing with a case where a police officer was alleged to have, taken the complainant into custody and thereafter the complainant was alleged to have been assaulted, tortured, and detained in the lock-up by the concerned officer, held that the acts complained of against the police officer was undoubtedly committed in course of discharge of: Hence, in my view, no cognizance of the alleged offence can be taken against the petitioner without prior sanction of the Government That apart, the learned Magistrate has not made any effort to see whether the act complained of was committedwhile the petitioner was discharging his official duty or not.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Kartikeswar Nayak v. Satyabadi Mallik;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' M/s S.K. Padhi and ;D. Mohapatra, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Mr. Sisir Das, Adv.', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2000-12-22', 'deposition' => 'Crl. misc. case allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.P. Das, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.P. Das, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner in this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure call in question the legality of the order dated 9-7-1996 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bolangir, in I. C. C. Case No. 16 of 1993 taking cognizance of the offence under sections 506/294 of the Indian Penal Code ('I. P. C.', in short) and issuing process against him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts leading to this application are as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Opposite party No. 1, Balgopal Mishra, on being declared elected as Member of Parliament of Bolangir Lok Sabha constituency took out a victory procession on 27-11-1989 in Bolangir town. At about 2.30 p. m. when the processionists were passing in front of the residence of the Superintendent of Police, they gave provocative slogans, pelted stones and abused the S. P. in. filthy languages. The police force which was accompanying the procession took reasonable steps to disperse the unruly crowd. One D. B. Sethi, S. I. of Police of Bolangir Town P. S., who was accompanying the process along with other police personnels lodged a report about the aforesaid incident at the Town Police Station which was registered as F. I. R No. 214 dated 27-11-1989, corresponding to G. R Case No 548 of 1989, under sections 143, 294, 336,/506 read with section 149, I. P. C. (Annexure-1), After due investigation, chargesheet has been filed against opposite party No. 1 vide Annexure-3, and the case is pending for trial in the court of the learned S. D. J. M., Bolangir.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">On the same day, i. e., 27-11-1989, opposite party No. 1 also lodged a report at the Bolangir Town Police Station, whichwas registered as F. I. R. N/o. 216 dated 27-11-1989, corresponding to G. R. Case No. 547 of 1989, under sections 294, 506, 426/ 323 read with section 34, I. P. C. (Annexute-2), against the present petitioner, who was then the S. P. Bolangir and some other police officers, on the allegation, inter alia, that the petitioner along with other police personnels abused the processionists. The further allegation is that while opposite party No 1 was going in the procession in front of the office of the S. P. a group of armed police attacked the processionists and started assaulting them indiscriminately as a result of which the people, who were going in the procession, started running away and finding the S. P. directing the police to chase opposite party No. 1, his jeep driver drove away his jeep to the house of Shri Narasingha Mishra, Advocate. His jeep was chased by the armed police men in a police van and a jeep under the leadership of S. P., opposite party No. 1 also found the armed police men and the S. P. with other armed police officers got down from their vehicles and chased the people, assaulted them, damaged the cycles and other properties and aimed fireguns towards the public. He also heard a police officer shouting at the top of his voice and uttering filthy languages and opposite party No. 1 was told that the person who was uttering filthy languages and shouting at him was the voice of the present petitioner. It is further alleged in the F. I. R. that the petitioner chased opposite party No. 1 from his residence to the house of Shri Narasingha Mishra to kill him and had his jeep not rushed inside the house of said Narasingha Mishra, he would have been killed by the S. P. After the police left, the D. I. G. visited the spot. Opposite party No. 1 was also told that the S. P. along with armed police was moving to kill him and the people's representatives. The matter was investigated by the police and after investigation, final form had been submitted on 3-9-1992. Against the final report submitted by the police in the aforesaid G. R. Case No. 547 of 1989, opposite party No. 1 has filed a protest petition on 10-2-1993 and the same has been registered as I. C. C. Case No. 16 of 1993 on the file of the learned S. D. J. M. Bolangir, vide Annexure-6. The aforesaid complaint case has been filed against the present petitioner and some other police officers and the initial statement of the complainant--opposite party No. 1 and- statement of other witnesses were recorded under section 202, Cr. P. C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">On going through the complaint petition; the initial statement of the complainant and the statement of other witnesses as also the records of G. R. Case No. 547 of 1989, the learned S.D.J.M. came to hold that there was prima facie case against the petitioner for which cognizance under sections 506/294. I. P. C. has been taken by order dated 9-7-1996, vide Annexure-8:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the incident occurred, the petitioner and other police officers were on duty to maintain law and order and the action taken during the incident was in due discharge of their official duty, and, therefore, the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance without prior sanction under section 197, Cr. P. C. That apart from the F.I.R. lodged by the police officer vide F.I.R. No. 214 dated 27-11-1989 (Annexurer-1) corresponding: to G. R. Case No. 548 of 1939, it appears that the police officers were dispersing the mob and they were acting while discharging their duties under section 129, Cr. P. C. and, therefore, they are protected under section 132, Cr. P. C. as they were maintaining public order/law and order situation. The complaint petition so fled by the complainant in Annexure-6 corroborates the fact that there was a victory procession and also fortifies the stand of the petitioner that the police officers in due discharge of their official duty were maintaining law and order situation when the procession was passing through the streets of Bolangir town. In the F.I.R. being F. I. R. No. 216 dated 27-11-1989 filed by the complainant, it is stated that 'I also heard police officers shouting on the top of his voice, uttering filthy languages saying.......... (obscene language in Oriya). I was told that the voice was that of Sanjib Marik, S. P., Bolangir.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On perusal of the allegations made by the complainant in his F. I. R. as also in the complaint petition, it seems to be developed when he describes in the complaint petition that 'On the way and at the time of chasing, the accused person No.1 was shouting at the top of his voice and abusing the complainant in filthy languages..................'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner was on duty and F. I. R. No. 214 dated 27-11-1989 indicates that the mob was being dispersed. Hence, I have no hesitation to hold that the police officer is protected under section 132, Cr. P. C. So, for taking cognizance against the petitioner, sanction is necessary as envisaged by section 197, Cr. P. C. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. That apart, the occurrence took place in the year 1989 and protest petition/ complaint petition was registered on 10-2-1993. Several adjournments were taken by the complaint and ultimately initial statement of the complainant was recorded on 3-6-1996. This indicates that the matter was delayed only to harass a public officer who was discharging his public duty when the occurrence had taken place.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. 'The object of section 197, Cr. P. C. is to guard' against vexatious proceedings against servants and to secure the well-considered opinion of the superior authority 'before a prosecution is launched against them. To find out as to what is the true and correct meaning of the phrase 'acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty'. Courts have considered different situations and no hard and fast rule has been laid down. It would essentially depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. But there has been a unanimity of judicial authorities to the effect that if there is a coherent nexus between the act complained of as an offence and the duty of the public servant, sanction becomes necessary even if such act is in excess of his exact duty. In the decision reported in the case of Kremjit Mohananda v. Mohanpani Kama and another (1995 (II) O. L. R. 284), this Court held that the principle embodied under section 197, Cr. P. C. well established. Before the 'provision of section 197, Cr. P. C. is invoked, two conditions must be first fulfilled (i) the public servant is not removable from his office except by or with the sanction of the State Government or the CentralGovernment, as the case may be, and (ii) he is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him. After these two pre-conditions are satisfied, a further enquiry is necessary to be made as to whether the alleged offence was committed by the public servant while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. It is in this connection that the expression 'purporting to act in the discharge of official duty' assumes importance. This expression is neither to be too narrowly interpreted nor too widely, Ultimately this Court held that what comes under the protective umbrella is an act constituting an offence, which directly or reasonably connects with his official duty. Protection of section 197 does not extend to acts done purely in a private capacity by public servant. This Court in Kartikeswar Nayak v. Satyabadi Mallik, reported in (1994) 7 O. C R 326, while dealing with a case where a police officer was alleged to have, taken the complainant into custody and thereafter the complainant was alleged to have been assaulted, tortured, and detained in the lock-up by the concerned officer, held that the acts complained of against the police officer was undoubtedly committed in course of discharge of: his official duty in arresting the complainant and producing him before the Court and even if any excess was committed in discharge of his duty, that excess was plainly in relation to his official duty in the sense that it was professed to be so and it was meant to convey to the mind of the complainant that he was acting under the authority of his office. Even if an excess was committed while effecting or continuing such arrest, it cannot be said that it was completely divorced from his duties. Accordingly, it was held that prior sanction under section 197, Cr. P. C was necessary.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. A bare perusal of the complaint petition indicates that the petitioner was on official duty when the incident took place and he was acting while discharging his official duty. Hence, in my view, no cognizance of the alleged offence can be taken against the petitioner without prior sanction of the Government That apart, the learned Magistrate has not made any effort to see whether the act complained of was committedwhile the petitioner was discharging his official duty or not. In my opinion, the learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order taking cognizance against the petitioner in a mechanical manner at a belated stage and without application of mind properly. What had been done by the police officer appears to have been done while discharging or purporting to discharge his official duties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Accordingly, the impugned order taking cognizance against the petitioner in I. C. C, Case No. 16 of 1993 on the file of the learned S. D. J. M., Bolangir, cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same is hereby quashed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Crl. Misc. Case allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '91(2001)CLT411; 2001(I)OLR260', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Bal Gopal Mishra and Another', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '527266' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Sanjeeb Kumar Marik Vs. Bal Gopal Mishra and Another Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'section 482', (int) 1 => 'the Indian Penal Code', (int) 2 => 'section 149', (int) 3 => 'section 34', (int) 4 => 'No 1', (int) 5 => 'section 202', (int) 6 => 'section 197', (int) 7 => 'section 129', (int) 8 => 'section 132', (int) 9 => 'section 132', (int) 10 => 'section 197', (int) 11 => 'section 197', (int) 12 => 'section 197', (int) 13 => 'section 197', (int) 14 => 'section 197' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'B.P. Das', (int) 1 => 'the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate', (int) 2 => 'him.2', (int) 3 => 'Parliament', (int) 4 => 'the Town Police Station', (int) 5 => 'G. R Case', (int) 6 => 'the Bolangir Town Police Station', (int) 7 => 'inter alia', (int) 8 => 'the S. P.', (int) 9 => 'the S. P. After', (int) 10 => 'S.D.J.M.', (int) 11 => 'Annexure-8:3', (int) 12 => 'Magistrate', (int) 13 => 'F.I.R. No', (int) 14 => 'Court', (int) 15 => 'the State Government', (int) 16 => 'CentralGovernment', (int) 17 => 'Court', (int) 18 => 'Magistrate', (int) 19 => 'Magistrate', (int) 20 => 'I. C. C' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1', (int) 1 => 'I. C. C. Case', (int) 2 => 'I. P. C.'', (int) 3 => 'Balgopal Mishra', (int) 4 => 'Bolangir Lok Sabha', (int) 5 => 'the S. P.', (int) 6 => 'D. B. Sethi', (int) 7 => 'S. I. of Police', (int) 8 => 'F. I. R No', (int) 9 => 'I. P. C.', (int) 10 => 'S. D. J. M.,', (int) 11 => 'i. e.', (int) 12 => 'F. I. R. N', (int) 13 => 'G. R. Case No', (int) 14 => 'I. P. C.', (int) 15 => 'S. P.', (int) 16 => 'the S. P.', (int) 17 => 'Narasingha Mishra', (int) 18 => 'G. R. Case No', (int) 19 => 'I. C. C. Case No', (int) 20 => 'S. D. J. M. Bolangir', (int) 21 => 'G. R. Case No', (int) 22 => 'I. P. C.', (int) 23 => 'G. R. Case No', (int) 24 => 'F. I. R. No', (int) 25 => 'Sanjib Marik', (int) 26 => 'S. P.', (int) 27 => 'F. I. R. No', (int) 28 => 'Kremjit Mohananda', (int) 29 => 'Mohanpani Kama', (int) 30 => 'O. L. R. 284', (int) 31 => 'Satyabadi Mallik', (int) 32 => 'S. D. J. M.,', (int) 33 => 'Misc' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '9', (int) 1 => '16', (int) 2 => '506/294', (int) 3 => '1', (int) 4 => '27-11-1989', (int) 5 => 'about 2.30', (int) 6 => 'One', (int) 7 => '214', (int) 8 => '143', (int) 9 => '294', (int) 10 => '336,/506', (int) 11 => '1', (int) 12 => '27-11-1989', (int) 13 => '1', (int) 14 => '216', (int) 15 => '547', (int) 16 => '294', (int) 17 => '506', (int) 18 => '1', (int) 19 => '1', (int) 20 => '1', (int) 21 => '1', (int) 22 => '1', (int) 23 => '547', (int) 24 => '1', (int) 25 => '10-2-1993', (int) 26 => '1', (int) 27 => '547', (int) 28 => '9', (int) 29 => '214', (int) 30 => '548', (int) 31 => '216', (int) 32 => '214', (int) 33 => '10-2-1993', (int) 34 => '3-6-1996', (int) 35 => 'two', (int) 36 => 'two' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Bolangir', (int) 1 => 'Bolangir', (int) 2 => 'Bolangir', (int) 3 => 'the F. I. R.', (int) 4 => 'F.I.R.', (int) 5 => 'Bolangir', (int) 6 => 'Oriya', (int) 7 => 'Cr', (int) 8 => 'Cr', (int) 9 => 'Cr', (int) 10 => 'Kartikeswar Nayak', (int) 11 => 'Cr', (int) 12 => 'Bolangir' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1993', (int) 1 => '27-11-1989', (int) 2 => 'the same day', (int) 3 => '27-11-1989', (int) 4 => '1989', (int) 5 => '3-9-1992', (int) 6 => '1989', (int) 7 => '1993', (int) 8 => '1989', (int) 9 => '506/294', (int) 10 => '27-11-1989', (int) 11 => '27-11-1989', (int) 12 => '27-11-1989', (int) 13 => 'the year 1989', (int) 14 => '1995', (int) 15 => '1994', (int) 16 => '1993', (int) 17 => 'quashed.10' ), 'FAC' => array( (int) 0 => 'the S. P. Bolangir' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'No.1', (int) 1 => 'The Criminal Misc' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'first' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '527266', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 129, 132, 197, 202 and 482; <a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 143, 149, 294, 323, 336, 426 and 506', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Misc. Case No. 3683 of 1996', 'appellant' => 'Sanjeeb Kumar Marik', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sanjeeb Kumar Marik Vs. Bal Gopal Mishra and Another', 'casenote' => 'Criminal - Cognizance - Sanction - Sections 294 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Petitioner a senior police officer charged under Sections 294 and 506 of IPC on filing of complaint by respondents - Trial Court took cognizance and issued process - Hence, present petition - Held, perusal of complaint petition indicates that petitioner was on official duty when incident took place and he was acting while discharging his official duty - Hence, no cognizance of alleged offence can be taken against petitioner without prior sanction of Government - Magistrate has not made any effort to see whether act complained of was committed while petitioner was discharging his official duty or not - Magistrate has passed impugned order taking cognizance against petitioner in mechanical manner at belated stage and without application of mind properly - Accordingly, impugned order taking cognizance against petitioner, cannot be sustained in eye of law and same is hereby quashed - Writ petition allowed - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 [C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 173(1) Proviso; [D. Biswas, Amitava Roy & I.A.Ansari, JJ] Appeal without statutory deposit but within limitation/or extended period of limitation Maintainability - Held, If the provision of a statute speaks of entertainment of appeal, it denotes that the appeal cannot be admitted to consideration unless other requirements are complied with. The provision of sub-section (1) of Section 173 permits filing of an appeal against an award within 90 days with a rider in the first proviso that such appeal filed cannot be entertained unless the statutory deposit is made. The period of limitation is applicable only to the filing of the appeal and not to the deposit to be made. It, therefore, appears that an appeal filed under Section 173 cannot be entertained i.e. cannot be admitted for consideration unless the statutory deposit is made and for this purpose the Court has the discretion either to grant time to make the deposit or not. No formal order condoning the delay is necessary, an order of adjournment would suffice. The provisions of limitation embodied in the substantive provision of the sub-section (1) of Section 173 of the Act does not extend to the provision relating to the deposit of statutory amount as embodies in the first proviso. Therefore an appeal filed within the period of limitation or within the extended period of limitation, cannot be admitted for hearing on merit unless the statutory deposit is made either with the memo of appeal or on such date as may be permitted by the Court. No specific order condoning any delay for the purpose of deposit under first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 173 is necessary. [New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v Md. Makubur Rahman, 1993 (2) GLR 430 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v Smt Rita Devi, 1997(2) GLT 406, Approved. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v Birendra Mohan De, 1995 (2) Gau LT 218 (DB) and Union of India v Smt Gita Banik, 1996 (2) GLT 246, are not good law]. - is to guard' against vexatious proceedings against servants and to secure the well-considered opinion of the superior authority 'before a prosecution is launched against them. But there has been a unanimity of judicial authorities to the effect that if there is a coherent nexus between the act complained of as an offence and the duty of the public servant, sanction becomes necessary even if such act is in excess of his exact duty. well established. After these two pre-conditions are satisfied, a further enquiry is necessary to be made as to whether the alleged offence was committed by the public servant while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. C R 326, while dealing with a case where a police officer was alleged to have, taken the complainant into custody and thereafter the complainant was alleged to have been assaulted, tortured, and detained in the lock-up by the concerned officer, held that the acts complained of against the police officer was undoubtedly committed in course of discharge of: Hence, in my view, no cognizance of the alleged offence can be taken against the petitioner without prior sanction of the Government That apart, the learned Magistrate has not made any effort to see whether the act complained of was committedwhile the petitioner was discharging his official duty or not.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Kartikeswar Nayak v. Satyabadi Mallik;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' M/s S.K. Padhi and ;D. Mohapatra, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Mr. Sisir Das, Adv.', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2000-12-22', 'deposition' => 'Crl. misc. case allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.P. Das, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.P. Das, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner in this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure call in question the legality of the order dated 9-7-1996 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bolangir, in I. C. C. Case No. 16 of 1993 taking cognizance of the offence under sections 506/294 of the Indian Penal Code ('I. P. C.', in short) and issuing process against him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts leading to this application are as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Opposite party No. 1, Balgopal Mishra, on being declared elected as Member of Parliament of Bolangir Lok Sabha constituency took out a victory procession on 27-11-1989 in Bolangir town. At about 2.30 p. m. when the processionists were passing in front of the residence of the Superintendent of Police, they gave provocative slogans, pelted stones and abused the S. P. in. filthy languages. The police force which was accompanying the procession took reasonable steps to disperse the unruly crowd. One D. B. Sethi, S. I. of Police of Bolangir Town P. S., who was accompanying the process along with other police personnels lodged a report about the aforesaid incident at the Town Police Station which was registered as F. I. R No. 214 dated 27-11-1989, corresponding to G. R Case No 548 of 1989, under sections 143, 294, 336,/506 read with section 149, I. P. C. (Annexure-1), After due investigation, chargesheet has been filed against opposite party No. 1 vide Annexure-3, and the case is pending for trial in the court of the learned S. D. J. M., Bolangir.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">On the same day, i. e., 27-11-1989, opposite party No. 1 also lodged a report at the Bolangir Town Police Station, whichwas registered as F. I. R. N/o. 216 dated 27-11-1989, corresponding to G. R. Case No. 547 of 1989, under sections 294, 506, 426/ 323 read with section 34, I. P. C. (Annexute-2), against the present petitioner, who was then the S. P. Bolangir and some other police officers, on the allegation, inter alia, that the petitioner along with other police personnels abused the processionists. The further allegation is that while opposite party No 1 was going in the procession in front of the office of the S. P. a group of armed police attacked the processionists and started assaulting them indiscriminately as a result of which the people, who were going in the procession, started running away and finding the S. P. directing the police to chase opposite party No. 1, his jeep driver drove away his jeep to the house of Shri Narasingha Mishra, Advocate. His jeep was chased by the armed police men in a police van and a jeep under the leadership of S. P., opposite party No. 1 also found the armed police men and the S. P. with other armed police officers got down from their vehicles and chased the people, assaulted them, damaged the cycles and other properties and aimed fireguns towards the public. He also heard a police officer shouting at the top of his voice and uttering filthy languages and opposite party No. 1 was told that the person who was uttering filthy languages and shouting at him was the voice of the present petitioner. It is further alleged in the F. I. R. that the petitioner chased opposite party No. 1 from his residence to the house of Shri Narasingha Mishra to kill him and had his jeep not rushed inside the house of said Narasingha Mishra, he would have been killed by the S. P. After the police left, the D. I. G. visited the spot. Opposite party No. 1 was also told that the S. P. along with armed police was moving to kill him and the people's representatives. The matter was investigated by the police and after investigation, final form had been submitted on 3-9-1992. Against the final report submitted by the police in the aforesaid G. R. Case No. 547 of 1989, opposite party No. 1 has filed a protest petition on 10-2-1993 and the same has been registered as I. C. C. Case No. 16 of 1993 on the file of the learned S. D. J. M. Bolangir, vide Annexure-6. The aforesaid complaint case has been filed against the present petitioner and some other police officers and the initial statement of the complainant--opposite party No. 1 and- statement of other witnesses were recorded under section 202, Cr. P. C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">On going through the complaint petition; the initial statement of the complainant and the statement of other witnesses as also the records of G. R. Case No. 547 of 1989, the learned S.D.J.M. came to hold that there was prima facie case against the petitioner for which cognizance under sections 506/294. I. P. C. has been taken by order dated 9-7-1996, vide Annexure-8:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the incident occurred, the petitioner and other police officers were on duty to maintain law and order and the action taken during the incident was in due discharge of their official duty, and, therefore, the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance without prior sanction under section 197, Cr. P. C. That apart from the F.I.R. lodged by the police officer vide F.I.R. No. 214 dated 27-11-1989 (Annexurer-1) corresponding: to G. R. Case No. 548 of 1939, it appears that the police officers were dispersing the mob and they were acting while discharging their duties under section 129, Cr. P. C. and, therefore, they are protected under section 132, Cr. P. C. as they were maintaining public order/law and order situation. The complaint petition so fled by the complainant in Annexure-6 corroborates the fact that there was a victory procession and also fortifies the stand of the petitioner that the police officers in due discharge of their official duty were maintaining law and order situation when the procession was passing through the streets of Bolangir town. In the F.I.R. being F. I. R. No. 216 dated 27-11-1989 filed by the complainant, it is stated that 'I also heard police officers shouting on the top of his voice, uttering filthy languages saying.......... (obscene language in Oriya). I was told that the voice was that of Sanjib Marik, S. P., Bolangir.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On perusal of the allegations made by the complainant in his F. I. R. as also in the complaint petition, it seems to be developed when he describes in the complaint petition that 'On the way and at the time of chasing, the accused person No.1 was shouting at the top of his voice and abusing the complainant in filthy languages..................'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner was on duty and F. I. R. No. 214 dated 27-11-1989 indicates that the mob was being dispersed. Hence, I have no hesitation to hold that the police officer is protected under section 132, Cr. P. C. So, for taking cognizance against the petitioner, sanction is necessary as envisaged by section 197, Cr. P. C. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. That apart, the occurrence took place in the year 1989 and protest petition/ complaint petition was registered on 10-2-1993. Several adjournments were taken by the complaint and ultimately initial statement of the complainant was recorded on 3-6-1996. This indicates that the matter was delayed only to harass a public officer who was discharging his public duty when the occurrence had taken place.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. 'The object of section 197, Cr. P. C. is to guard' against vexatious proceedings against servants and to secure the well-considered opinion of the superior authority 'before a prosecution is launched against them. To find out as to what is the true and correct meaning of the phrase 'acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty'. Courts have considered different situations and no hard and fast rule has been laid down. It would essentially depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. But there has been a unanimity of judicial authorities to the effect that if there is a coherent nexus between the act complained of as an offence and the duty of the public servant, sanction becomes necessary even if such act is in excess of his exact duty. In the decision reported in the case of Kremjit Mohananda v. Mohanpani Kama and another (1995 (II) O. L. R. 284), this Court held that the principle embodied under section 197, Cr. P. C. well established. Before the 'provision of section 197, Cr. P. C. is invoked, two conditions must be first fulfilled (i) the public servant is not removable from his office except by or with the sanction of the State Government or the CentralGovernment, as the case may be, and (ii) he is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him. After these two pre-conditions are satisfied, a further enquiry is necessary to be made as to whether the alleged offence was committed by the public servant while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. It is in this connection that the expression 'purporting to act in the discharge of official duty' assumes importance. This expression is neither to be too narrowly interpreted nor too widely, Ultimately this Court held that what comes under the protective umbrella is an act constituting an offence, which directly or reasonably connects with his official duty. Protection of section 197 does not extend to acts done purely in a private capacity by public servant. This Court in Kartikeswar Nayak v. Satyabadi Mallik, reported in (1994) 7 O. C R 326, while dealing with a case where a police officer was alleged to have, taken the complainant into custody and thereafter the complainant was alleged to have been assaulted, tortured, and detained in the lock-up by the concerned officer, held that the acts complained of against the police officer was undoubtedly committed in course of discharge of: his official duty in arresting the complainant and producing him before the Court and even if any excess was committed in discharge of his duty, that excess was plainly in relation to his official duty in the sense that it was professed to be so and it was meant to convey to the mind of the complainant that he was acting under the authority of his office. Even if an excess was committed while effecting or continuing such arrest, it cannot be said that it was completely divorced from his duties. Accordingly, it was held that prior sanction under section 197, Cr. P. C was necessary.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. A bare perusal of the complaint petition indicates that the petitioner was on official duty when the incident took place and he was acting while discharging his official duty. Hence, in my view, no cognizance of the alleged offence can be taken against the petitioner without prior sanction of the Government That apart, the learned Magistrate has not made any effort to see whether the act complained of was committedwhile the petitioner was discharging his official duty or not. In my opinion, the learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order taking cognizance against the petitioner in a mechanical manner at a belated stage and without application of mind properly. What had been done by the police officer appears to have been done while discharging or purporting to discharge his official duties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Accordingly, the impugned order taking cognizance against the petitioner in I. C. C, Case No. 16 of 1993 on the file of the learned S. D. J. M., Bolangir, cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same is hereby quashed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Crl. Misc. Case allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '91(2001)CLT411; 2001(I)OLR260', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Bal Gopal Mishra and Another', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '527266' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/' $shops2 = nullinclude - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
LAW: section 482, the Indian Penal Code, section 149, section 34, No 1, section 202, section 197, section 129, section 132, section 132, section 197, section 197, section 197, section 197, section 197
ORG: B.P. Das, the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, him.2, Parliament, the Town Police Station, G. R Case, the Bolangir Town Police Station, inter alia, the S. P., the S. P. After, S.D.J.M., Annexure-8:3, Magistrate, F.I.R. No, Court, the State Government, CentralGovernment, Court, Magistrate, Magistrate, I. C. C
PERSON: J.1, I. C. C. Case, I. P. C.', Balgopal Mishra, Bolangir Lok Sabha, the S. P., D. B. Sethi, S. I. of Police, F. I. R No, I. P. C., S. D. J. M.,, i. e., F. I. R. N, G. R. Case No, I. P. C., S. P., the S. P., Narasingha Mishra, G. R. Case No, I. C. C. Case No, S. D. J. M. Bolangir, G. R. Case No, I. P. C., G. R. Case No, F. I. R. No, Sanjib Marik, S. P., F. I. R. No, Kremjit Mohananda, Mohanpani Kama, O. L. R. 284, Satyabadi Mallik, S. D. J. M.,, Misc
CARDINAL: 9, 16, 506/294, 1, 27-11-1989, about 2.30, One, 214, 143, 294, 336,/506, 1, 27-11-1989, 1, 216, 547, 294, 506, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 547, 1, 10-2-1993, 1, 547, 9, 214, 548, 216, 214, 10-2-1993, 3-6-1996, two, two
GPE: Bolangir, Bolangir, Bolangir, the F. I. R., F.I.R., Bolangir, Oriya, Cr, Cr, Cr, Kartikeswar Nayak, Cr, Bolangir
DATE: 1993, 27-11-1989, the same day, 27-11-1989, 1989, 3-9-1992, 1989, 1993, 1989, 506/294, 27-11-1989, 27-11-1989, 27-11-1989, the year 1989, 1995, 1994, 1993, quashed.10
FAC: the S. P. Bolangir
PRODUCT: No.1, The Criminal Misc
ORDINAL: first