Patna High Court
Pancham Lal vs Dadan Singh on 15 December, 1977
Equivalent citations: 1979CRILJ1018
ORDER Udaf Sinha, J.
1.This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for quashing the trial of the petitioner under sections 504 and 323/109 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The incidents out of which the present application arises took place on 5-12-1976. On that date the petitioner, a member of the Indian Administrative Service was posted as Sub-Divisional Officer at Arrah. The incidents of 5-12-1976 led to filing of a complaint by Dadan Singh, opposite party against the petitioner and thirteen others. Arising out of the same incidents the police of Ud-wantnagar Police station also instituted case No. 3 (12) 76 on the basis of a written report of K. P. Sinha, Circle Officer, Udwantnagar against Rampukar Singh and Shree Narayan Singh. The complaint filed by the opposite party alleged commission of offences under Sections 147, 323, 500; 502 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged in the complaint filed by the opposite party that with the object of instigating class war between backward classes and forward classes, the petitioner along with K. P. Sinha, Anchal Adhikari, Udwantnagar was getting the ripe paddy crop of plot No. 2176 forcibly harvested by accused 3 to 14. The complainant alleged that the paddy crop had been grown by him and there was no justification for the petitioner to have got the crop harvested by accused 3 to 14. On learning of the forcible harvesting of his crops by the accused, the complainant went to the field and protested to what was happening there, but the petitioner, it is alleged, used abusive language. The abusive language said to have been used by the petitioner was "sale Tumhare Bap Ka Khet Hai" and other expressions. This provoked the complainant, but he contained himself with great difficulty. The second allegation against the petitioner in the complaint was that the petitioner said "Maro Sale Ko." Upon this instigation accused No. 2 K. P. Sinha, Anchal Adhikari of Udwantnagar caught hold of the complainant's shirt and gave him a fist blow. When Ram Pukar Singh and Shree Narayan Singh, witnesses to the incident, protested to the acts of the petitioner and the Anchal Adhikari, they were arrested by the Armed Forces on their order and taken to Arrah even though bailors were offered to secure their release. The complaint was filed on 7-12-1976 in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Arrah, who immediately 'examined the complainant on solemn affirmation. Thereafter, he trans-freed the case under Section 192(1) of the Code to Shri A.P. Sharma. Judicial Magistrate, Second Class for inquiry and disposal according to law. Shri Sharma, the transferee Judicial Magistrate, examined five witnesses in support of the complaint and being of the view that a prima facie case against the petitioner had been made out under sections 504 and 323/109 of the Indian Penal Code directed issuance of processes against him. Shri Sharma, however, did not issue processes for abetment of the offence of theft of the paddy crops, as no sanction to prosecute him had been obtained for that offence. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate accepted the stand of the complainant opposite party that the acts of the petitioner could not be deemed to have been committed in his official capacity. The learned Magistrate directed issuance of processes under iSec-tion 323 against the Anchal Adhikari and under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code against accused Nos. 3 to J4. who are Dusadhe by caste. That is one side of the picture as presented by the complainant opposite party in regard to the incidents in village Udwantnagar on 5-12-1976.
3. The other side of the picture has been presented before this Court by the petitioner. That is contained in the petition and supplementary affidavits filed by him. The counter version is that there was an explosive situation in village Udwantnagar where the land in question was situate. The dispute between the complainant and the Dusadh accused in relation to the harvesting of paddy crops had generated such an amount of heat that the Anchal Adhikari with armed force had been deputed to keep the peace. The agricultural labourers of village Sarathua intended to harvest the crops from the Kola land which Rampukar Singh, Shree Narayan Singh and the opposite party Dasan Singh etc. with their henchmen were not prepared to allow. On 25-11-1976 one Benarsi Devi Gupta, Organiser of Bihar Khetihar Gramin Mazdoor Congress (Arrah) filed an application before Collector, Arrah in which it was said that the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms had been directed on 18-11-1976 to get the paddy crops of Kola land harvested, but it had not been carried out till that day. It was also alleged that the Maliks of Sarathua village were telling the agricultural labourers to deposit the Kola crop in their Khalihan. When the labourers demanded their wages, they were met with the threat that they would not be allowed to harvest the crops if they did not agree to deposit the crops in the granary of Maliks. The representatipn of Benarsi Devi Gupta, therefore, called upon the Collector that the administration should assist the labourers in getting the crops grown by them harvested. If the administration did not come to their aid by 27-11-1976, she would lead the labourers to harvest the crops themselves. The Collector was, therefore, asked to take steps to maintain peace. A copy of this representation was sent to the petitioner also, who then happened to be the Subdivisional Officer of Arrah. By letter dated 2-12-1976 (Annexure-6) the petitioner directed Circle Officer, Udwantnagar to camp at village Sarathua to see that agricultural labourers harvested their Kola land crop peacefully. Copies of this letter were sent to District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur at Arrah. On 5-12-1976 the petitioner was returning to Arrah from village Sonatola, Police station Sahar. While he was passing village Sarathua, the villagers stopped him and informed him that the Magistrate incharge-Cum-Anchal Adhikari, Shri K. P. Sinha had been surrounded by the landlords and their Lathials. The petitioner on going there saw K. P. Sinha surrounded. Finding no other way out for rescuing K. P. Sinha, Rampukar Singh and Shree Narayan Singh were arrested by the Armed Force. Thereafter, the unruly mob dispersed. The petitioner has averred in paragraph 7 of his supplementary affidavit that he thereafter returned to Arrah and after discussions with the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Superitendent of Police and Deputy Superintendent of Police, again went to village Sarathua with other officers and managed to bring about amicable settlement between the parties. A joint report was submitted by the petitioner and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Arrah on 7-12-1976. According to the petitioner, the allegations against the petitioner and others in the complaint filed by the opposite party are false and concocted and brought into being on 7-12-1976, two days after the institution of the police case as a counter blast to the case instituted by the Anchal Adhikari Shri K. P. Sinha On 5-12-1976. The petitioner has claimed that he was acting in discharge of his duty of maintaining law and order and, therefore, no cognizance could have been taken of the offence alleged to have been committed by him without the sanction of the Union Government.
4. At this stage it is essential to state what is Kola land. There are lands which were given by landlords or big cultivators to labourers several years ago in lieu of wages. They did not receive wages in cash or kind, but were free to cultivate and enjoy the usufruct of these lands. The labourers continued to remain in possession of those lands from generation to generation. The landlords never shared with the labourers in the produce of those lands. With the abolition of zamindaris in this State proprietors disappeared, but they re-appeared in the garb of large cultivators. The relationship between such cultivators and their labourers or servants continued as before. Then came the Minimum Wages Act. With efforts to enforce the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act serfdom began to crumble. The agricultural labourers started demanding minimum wages. With such a demand the large cultivators endeavoured to regain the lands given by them or their ancestors to labourers. That was the situation which gave rise to the incidents in this case. The complainant and his party contended that if the agricultural labourers insisted upon minimum wages, they could have no right to appropriate the produce of the Kola lands. They, therefore, insisted upon accused 3 to 14 in this case to deposit the grains in the Khalihan of the complainant. Accused 3 to 14, on the other hand, insisted upon harvesting and appropriating their produce of the Kola lands as their own on the footing that they had acquired indefeasible right to those lands.
5. Upon the facts narrated in the complaint by the parties there does not seem to be much difference. The complaint itself shows that an explosive situation had developed in regard to harvesting of crops from Kola lands. The complainant and his friends and helpers formed a party of superior class of agriculturists. From the complaint itself it is obvious as also from annexures-5 and 6 that Armed Force had been deputed at village Sarathua and the Circle Officer, Udwantnagar was camping there to see that crops were harvested peacefully by agricultural labourers. Thus a tense situation existed. The only difference between the complainant and the petitioner with regard to the incidents of 5-12-1976 is that whereas the petitioner has claimed that he got arrested Rampukar Singh and Shree Narayan Singh and got the Magistrate incharge rescued from the mob of the tenants, the coun-terversion is that the petitioner abused the complainant and on his order K. P. Sinha slapped the complainant. Upon these divergent set of facts, it has been contended that the cognizance taken and the processes issued against the petitioner was in contravention of the provisions of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
6. It is well settled that in an application for quashing the facts alleged by the complainant must be taken as true. It is not open to me to hold that the allegation of the complainant that the petitioner abused is untrue. I shall therefore, consider the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner on the assumption that the petitioner abused and on his order or instigation K. P. Sinha slapped the complainant Dadan Singh.
7. At the outset I should like to point out that the Chief Judicial Magistrate did not issue processes against the petitioner for having committed the offence of abetment of theft by accused 3 to 14, as there was no sanction to prosecute him for that offence. It necessarily follows that the learned Magistrate accepted the petitioner's version that the petitioner was acting in discharge of his duties. Question arises if the act of getting the crops cut was an act in discharge of his duty and if the petitioner abused the complainant did it not happen in purported discharge of duty ?
8. There is no getting away from the situation, and it is obvious from the posture of the parties that the situation at village Sarathua over harvesting of Kola land crops was tense. In that situation, if the petitioner flung an abuse "Sale Tumhare Bap Ka Khet Hai" and "Maro Sale Ko", did he commit these acts while discharging his duty? Law and order is quite a ticklish problem. What step will succeed at a particular point of time to ease out a particular situation has to be seen, to be understood. It is quite different from sitting and calculating in a cool and serene atmosphere of a court room dissecting the acts and counter-acts alleged by parties. What posture and attitude will succeed in a given set of circumstances must be left to the discretion of the public servant who has to tackle an explosive situation. Often a slap to the gang leader demoralises his adherents and defuses the situation, The methods and demands of tackling a situation must keep on varying and yet all those acts are in discharge of duty, may be in dereliction thereof. In the situation which existed on the facts of this case, I have no manner of doubt that the petitioner was acting in discharge of his duties while he uttered these abuses. I am prepared to concede that to an extent he overstepped his bounds. But these niceties can only be gauged in this Court room. An amount of latitude must be conceded when public servants are in the field attending to explosive situation. In my view, in view of the law laid down in Shreekantiah Ramayya Munipalli v. State of Bombay and Matajog Dubey v. H.C. Bhari the prosecution of the petitioner was without jurisdiction in the absence of sanction to prosecute him. The law laid down in Shreekantiah's case (supra) and Matajog Dubey's case (Supra) has been accepted as the correct law also in the case of Prabhakar V. Sinari v. Shanker Anant Verlekar , on which reliance was placed by learned Counsel for the opposite party. According to Mr. Rash Behari Singh, learned Counsel for the opposite party. the present case was governed by the case of Prabhakar v. Sinari (Supra) and, therefore, in order to prosecute the petitioner for the offences committed by him no sanction was required. I shall presently show that Prabhakar v. Sinari's case (Supra) can be of no assistance to the opposite party. The facts in Prabhakar v. Sinari's case (Supra) were that a set of hawkers attempted to trespass upon the land of the complainant with the intention of putting up stalls there. On the information given by the complainant, the police came and asked the hawkers to move their handcarts to the place where they were kept before. Later Prabhakar, a Deputy Superintendent of Police came to the spot and spoke to the complainant in a very arrogant tone. The Deputy Superintendent of Police was then alleged to have threatened the complainant that he would lock him up in case he interfered with what the hawkers wanted to do. He also beckoned the hawkers to enter upon the land of the complainant. When the complainant protested, he was warned by the Deputy Superintendent of Police that if the complainant talked, he would be slapped and in fact he was slapped. The cognizance taken in regard to offences alleged to have been committed by Prabhakhar was challenged on the ground that it was incompetent for want of sanction in terms of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the special facts of that case the Supreme Court held that no sanction was needed, as the public servant was not acting in discharge of his duty. In this case also the public servant had abused and slapped the complainant. Therefore apparently the facts of the instant case seem to be similar to Prabhakar's case (supra). But what distinguished Prabhakar's case (supra) with the present case is that in the former it was not established that Prabhakar came in the capacity of a Police Officer. The Police Officer came in civil dress and wanted the hawkers to be put in possession and actually directed them to enter upon the plot. Grover, J., as he then was observed that it was no part of the duty of the Police Officer that the hawkers were put in possession of the disputed land. In the present case, the petitioner being the Sub-Divisional Officer had deputed Armed Forces and Magistrate to keep the peace. By what process and in what manner the situation could be eased out without resort to excessive force must have been of concern to the petitioner. In that situation, if the petitioner used a few harsh words and succeeded. I am unable to see how they can be disjointed from the executive functions of the petitioner. Great injustice and harassment to civil administration and civil servants is likely if the law laid down in Matajog Dubey's case 1956 Cri LJ 140 (SC) (supra) quoted below is lost sight of (at p. 145):
There must be a reasonable connection between the act and the discharge of official duty; the act must bear such relation to the duty that the accused could lay a reasonable, but not a pretended or fanciful claim, that he did it in the course of the performance of his duty.
Grover, J. in Prabhakar's case 1969 Cri LJ 1057 (SC) (supra) noted with approval the observations of Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J. that it did not matter if the acts, exceeded were strictly necessary for the discharge of the duty. What had to be found out was whether the act and the official duty were so interrelated that one can postulate reasonably that it was done by the accused in the performance of the official duty though possibly in excess of the needs and requirements of the situation. The facts of the present case fall squarely within the observations of Grover, J. Prabhakar's case (supra) can be of no assistance to the complainant. The facts of that case are distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Rather the principles laid down by Grover, J. support the petitioner in full measure. In the view that I have taken, I have not the least doubt that the acts alleged against the petitioner were committed in discharge of official duty. Cognizance of offences alleged to have been committed by him without sanction was violative of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
9. For the reasons stated above, the application is allowed and the prosecution of the petitioner in complaint Case No. 981 of 1976 is hereby quashed.