Dismissed

Anil Murlidhar Deshmukh v. Mukund Sadashiv Ranade and Anr.

Bombay HC24 Aug 2006APPLN/3027/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging maintenance of proceedings without sanction under Section 197, the Court dismissed the application. It held that whether the offences were committed during discharge of official duty must be established via evidence. Without material proving this, the plea could not be entertained at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed; dismissal does not preclude raising plea of want of sanction during trial if materials are produced.

Anil Murlidhar Deshmukh Vs Mukund Sadashiv Ranade… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3027 OF 2003

¶3

 Anil M. Deshmukh .. Applicant

¶4

 Versus
 Mukund S. Ranade & Anr. .. Respondents

¶5

 Mr.Shailesh Kantharia for applicant
 Mrs.M.H.Mhatre, A.P.P. for State.

¶6

 CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.
 DATE : 24th August 2006.

¶7

 P.C.

¶8

 . Heard Mr.Kantharia for applicant

¶9

 2. Applicant is an accused in case No.527 of
 1997. First respondent is the original

¶10

¶11

 complainant.

¶12

 3. Offences alleged are under sections 166,
 167, 303, 324, 341, 342, 352, 357, 504 and 506 of
 I.P.C. First respondent complainant has urged in
 the complaint that the applicant accused has come
 to one place where there was some conference and
 when he and others were leaving that place, the
 applicant accused along with other police
 constables directed that complainant and others
 should come to Ambad police station. Applicant
 thereupon has allegedly informed the complainant
 and others that their statements have to be
 recorded. However, they were made to wait for
 quite some time and the statements were not
 recorded.

¶13

 4. In para 3 of the complaint it is alleged
 that the applicant accused assaulted the first
 respondent complainant who is a press reporter.
 The acts of assault have been specifically set

¶14

¶15

 out in paras 3 to 5. The applicant has been
 accused of the aforesaid offences. Based upon
 the averments and allegations the aforesaid
 complaint is filed. So also, the complainant
 points out that the applicant assaulted him on
 account of which he suffered injuries for which
 treatment was given to him. Thus, by abusing and
 misusing the powers and the office that he was
 holding and deliberately preparing false records
 and lodging false chapter cases, so also
 assaulting and attacking the complainant with
 weapon, the aforesaid offences have been
 committed.

¶16

 5. The only submission of Mr.Kantharia is
 that the Cr.P.C. under section 197 provides for
 prosecution of Judges and public servants. It is
 specifically stated therein that no court shall
 take cognisance of such offences which are
 committed by him while acting or purporting to
 act in discharge of his official duty, except

¶17

¶18

 with previous sanction of the authority
 stipulated therein. In the present case,
 admittedly, no sanction is accorded. In such
 circumstances, cognisance cannot be taken of the
 complaint alleging above offences and the same is
 ex facie not maintainable and, continuance of
 proceedings would be an abuse of the process of
 Court. Even otherwise, to meet the ends of
 justice, when there is no sanction accorded, this
 is a fit case for exercise of powers under
 section 482 of Cr.P.C. Reliance is placed by the
 learned Counsel on a judgement in the case of
 Sankaran Moitra Vs. Sadhna Das and Anr.,
 reported in (2006) 4 S.C.C. 584.

¶19

 6. Since the complainant has remained absent
 despite service, with the assistance of
 Mr.Kantharia I have perused the petition and the
 original complaint. Provisions of Section 197 of
 Cr.P.C. are clear inasmuch as when any person
 who is a public servant and not capable of being

¶20

¶21

 removed without the sanction of the Government is
 accused of any offence alleged to have been
 committed by him while acting or purporting to
 act in discharge of his official duty, then no
 court shall take cognisance of such offences
 except with previous sanction of the authority
 stipulated therein. For the provisions to apply,
 it must be shown that the applicant is accused of
 any offence alleged to have been committed while
 acting or purporting to act in discharge of his
 official duty. The learned Additional Sessions
 Judge is right in his conclusion that in the
 facts and circumstances of this case, whether
 these ingredients are satisfied or not, will have
 to be established after evidence is led.
 Considering the averments in the complaint, prima
 facie, when the applicant has, along with other
 police constables, visited a place which was
 booked for holding a conference by workers’ union
 and a political outfit and calling upon the
 persons, named in the complaint including the

¶22

¶23

 complainant to report to the police station, it
 is not clear whether the applicant was visiting
 this place for investigating an offence as is
 alleged in the present application. In other
 words, the submission of Mr.Kantharia that the
 applicant went there because he was investigating
 a criminal case, cannot be accepted without
 necessary materials being produced and proved.
 For applicability of section 197 this will have
 to be done. The judgement of the Supreme Court
 is rendered considering the facts brought before
 it. The Supreme Court emphasised the necessity
 of previous sanction for taking cognisance. The
 judgement proceeds on the facts before the
 Supreme Court. There was no dispute that the
 applicant before the Supreme Court was indeed
 acting or purporting to act in discharge of his
 official duty. In such circumstances the
 judgement has been rendered. There is no dispute

¶24

 or quarrel about this proposition. The principle
 laid down is applicable. However, its

¶25

¶26

 applicability depends on the facts and

¶27

 circumstances of each case. For the ingredients
 of section 197(1) to be satisfied, materials will
 have to be produced. Hence, I do not find any
 fault in the approach of the learned Additional
 Sessions Judge that such aspects can be gone into
 during the course of trial and depending upon
 that submission on the lack of previous sanction
 can be appreciated.

¶28

 7. Hence, without the materials being

¶29

 produced on record, it is not possible to

¶30

 entertain the submission of Mr.Kantharia.

¶31

 8. The application is, therefore, dismissed.
 However, dismissal of this application so also
 the order of the Sessions Judge shall not

¶32

 preclude the applicant from raising appropriate
 contentions and producing materials to raise plea

¶33

 of want of sanction. The same be considered

¶34

 without being influenced by either the

¶35

¶36

 observations of the trial court or dismissal of

¶37

 this application.

¶38

 (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)

Anil Murlidhar Deshmukh v. Mukund Sadashiv Ranade and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Murlidhar Deshmukh v. Mukund Sadashiv Ranade and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Om Prakash Shrivastava @ Babloo Shrivasta Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sameer Madhukar Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pradeep Kumar Mewalal Jaiswal and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Amol Pandurang Ahire Vs the State of Maharashtra

Raju Ranjan Singh @ Guddusingh Thakkur Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bhanudas @ Appa Prabhu Wagmode and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra