Madras High Court
Kumaravel vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 February, 2015
Author: M.Sathyanarayanan
Bench: M.Sathyanarayanan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 10.02.2015 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN Crl.R.C.(MD)No.29 of 2015 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2015 and Crl.R.C.(MD)No.30 of 2015 1.Kumaravel 2.Elango 3.Ramar 4.Jayaseelan 5.Gurusamy ... Petitioners in both Crl.RCs. Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu rep.by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukottai. ... Respondent in both Crl.RCs. Crl.R.C.(MD)No.29 of 2015 filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai in Cr.M.P.No.5281 of 2014 in C.C.No.207 of 2012 dated 25.11.2014 and set aside the same. Crl.R.C.(MD)No.30 of 2015 filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai in Cr.M.P.No.8860 of 2013 in C.C.No.207 of 2012 dated 25.11.2014 and set aside the same. !For Petitioners : Mr.K.Appadurai ^For Respondent : Mrs.S.Prabha, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) :COMMON ORDER
By consent, the revisions are taken up for final disposal.
2.The respondent, viz. the Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukottai, lodged a private complaint stating among other things, that one Ganesan, an Army Personnel was assaulted at the night hours on 07.05.2004 by the petitioners herein, who are all police personnel, inflicted injuries on him.
3.In this regard, enquiry was conducted in terms of Police Standing Order 150(1) and based on the Enquiry Report, the Government directed the respondent herein to file a complaint, based on which the above said complaint came to be lodged.
4.All the accused had filed two petitions for discharge, ie., Crl.M.P.No.8860 of 2013 and 5281 of 2014 raising the point with regard to the merits of the evidence let in by the respondent, and the sanction for prosecution. Both the petitions came to be dismissed by separate orders dated 25.11.2014. Aggrieved by the same, the present revisions are filed.
5.The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would contend that out of 25 witnesses on the side of the prosecution, 9 witnesses have already been examined including the alleged impugned person, viz. Captain Ganesan of Indian Army and admittedly all the accused are police personnel and since the allegation is that they have assaulted earlier the said person while discharging their duty, sanction under Section 197(1) of Cr.P.C. is a must, and admittedly, without sanction, the prosecution has been launched, and the said fact was completely overlooked by the Trial Court, while dismissing the appeals for discharge. Hence, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners pray for interference of the impugned orders.
6.Per contra, Mrs.S.Prabha, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), would contend that the witnesses examined by the prosecution had spoken to about the fact of assault upon the said Ganesan of Indian Army and only 9 out of 25 witnesses were examined and unless and until the examination of all witnesses are completed, it is not open to the petitioners to invoke Section 245(1) of Cr.P.C. It is further contended by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that admittedly the police personnel are Sub-Inspectors of Police and below the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police and therefore, sanction of the Government is not required to prosecute them and the said aspect was taken into consideration by the Lower Court, which rightly dismissed the petitions for discharge. Hence, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) prays for dismissal of the Criminal Revision Cases.
7.This Court, after considering the rival submissions and upon perusal of the impugned orders passed by the Trial Court, is of the view that these revision petitions are liable to be dismissed for the following reasons:
(a)Admittedly, some of the witnesses have to be examined and therefore, the petitions for discharge under Section 245(1) of Cr.P.C., in the considered opinion of this Court, is premature.
(b)The main plank of attack made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that without sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C., prosecution launched by the respondent is bad. The Lower Court has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by this Court in Muthusamy Gounder v.
C.P.Singharam, reported in 1979 (1) MLJ Cr.705, wherein it has been held that the expression ?Sub-ordinate Police officer? shall include all police officers of and below the rank of an Inspector and therefore, the Inspector General, the Deputy Inspector General or District Superintendent of Police may dismiss or reduce to a lower post or time scale or to a lower stage in time scale, any officer of the Sub-ordinate police whom they shall think re- raise or negligent in the discharge of his duty. Admittedly, the police personnel are Sub-Inspectors of Police and below the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police and therefore, the ratio laid down in the said judgment is squarely applicable to the case on hand. The Lower Court has also relied upon two more judgments on the very same proposition and rightly arrived at the decision that the petitions for discharge filed by the petitioners herein are liable to be dismissed.
8.This Court, on an independent application of mind to the materials placed before it, is of the considered view that there is no error apparent or infirmity in the reasons assigned by the Trial Court for dismissing the petitions for discharge, and this Court finds no merits in these revisions.
9.In the result, both the Criminal Revision Cases are dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. It is made clear that the observations made herein are only for the disposal of these revisions and this Court has not touched upon the merits of the case of the prosecution and the defence to be adduced by the accused.
Index : Yes/No 10.02.2015 Internet : Yes/No KM To 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukottai. 2.The Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J. KM Crl.R.C.(MD)No.29 of 2015 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2015 and Crl.R.C.(MD)No.30 of 2015 10.02.2015