Delhi District Court
Satish Pandey vs . Subhash Chand on 25 July, 2016
IN THE COURT OF RAKESH KUMAR RAMPURI
MM-8 (CENTRAL):DELHI
Satish Pandey Vs. Subhash Chand
CC No. :27/1
PS : NDRS
U/s : 323 IPC
Date of Institution : 12.12.2006
Date of reserve of order : 14.07.2016
Date of announcement : 25.07.2016
JUDGMENT
New CN No. 522074/16
1. Serial No. of the case : 27/1/14
2. Name of the Complainant : Satish Pandey
3. Date of incident : 19.10.2006
4. Name of accused person : Subhash Chand S/o Sh.
Guljari Singh,R/o Vill-
Mukutpur, Post Drayat, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh.
5. Offence complained of or proved : Under Section 323 IPC
6. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7. Final Order : Acquitted
8. Date of such Order : 25.07.2016 BRIEF REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION:
1. The broad facts in the background of which, the present case filed by the complainant are that on 19.10.2006, he was at platform No. 1 of New Delhi Railway Station at about 8.45 PM for going to Allahabad from Prayagraj Express. Accused CRPF Ct. Subhash Chand also happens to be there at platform number-01 and he was very furious due to heavy rush on account of Diwali festival. It is case of the complainant that accused came to him and asked him CC No. 27/1 Page No. 1 of 21 the purpose of standing at platform number 1 and before he could reply, accused allegedly slapped him and started abusing him in filthy language. It is also case of complainant that he told the accused that he was an advocate practicing at Supreme Court of India and thereafter, accused again slapped him, while saying that the first slap was for you and the second for your advocacy in presence of SI Vidya Singh and his other colleagues. It is also stated by the complainant that accused had also threatened to paralyse him, if he again sees complainant at the spot. Thereafter, complainant alongwith an alleged independent witness Dhanji Lal @ Dhan Singh had gone to Police Station for lodging the complaint with the police. Ultimately, complainant filed a written complaint u/s 155(2) r/w Section 190(1) of Cr.P.C against the accused before the court on 08.12.2006.
2. Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 05.03.2010 issued summon against accused Ct. Subhash Chand for offence punishable u/s 323 of IPC on the basis of statement of complainant and his witnesses at pre-summoning stage. On prima facie basis, notice of accusation u/s 251 of Cr.P.C was served upon the accused by the court on 10.05.2012 for committing offence punishable u/s 323 of IPC with complainant. Accused had cross examined complainant and his other witnesses. Thereafter, statement of accused u/s 313 r/w 281 of Cr.P.C was recorded on 03.01.2014, wherein he claimed that complainant was standing for buying a ticket from ticket counter and there was heavy crowd due to festive season. He also claimed that complainant came to him, while he was deployed near Lady queue and asked him to buy a ticket for complainant, which he refused.CC No. 27/1 Page No. 2 of 21
Accused further claimed that complainant asked a lady in the queue to buy a ticket for him, which she also refused. Accused also stated that complainant addressed that lady as "idiot" and due to which, she slapped him. Accused further stated that on seeing the same, he caught hold of the complainant and on this, complainant threatened him to get removed from the service as he had connections with higher officials. Accused himself and Sh. Vinay Kumar Sharma, Deputy Commandant, RAF, Headquarter, R.K. Puram, Delhi, testified as defence witnesses (DW-1) and (DW-2) respectively. Thereafter, complainant and Ld. defence counsel made detailed final oral submissions on behalf of respective sides. Ld. defence counsel also filed written submissions on behalf of accused.
3. Ld. Counsel for accused contended that complainant (CW-1) in his cross examination admitted that he was not having the reservation ticket for journey on 19.10.2006 for given train and neither original nor copy of any type of travel ticket has been filed by the complainant on record, which suggests that complainant had to purchase ticket on the same day of the alleged incident and that was a difficult job, in view of heavy rush on account of Diwali festival. Ld. Counsel for accused also contended that there is contradiction in the statement of the complainant and his witness (CW-2) regarding place of alleged incident because complainant (CW-1) deposed that he was standing at platform number 1 whereas CW-2 deposed that the incident occurred near ticket window. Ld. Counsel for accused also stated that CW-1 deposed that accused asked him the purpose of standing at platform number 1 and accused slapped him on two CC No. 27/1 Page No. 3 of 21 occasions but CW-2 had stated as under :-
"The public standing in the crowd was saying that an advocate has been beaten. When I entered inside cutting the crowd, I saw the accused slapping the complainant twice".
Accordingly, Ld. defence counsel contended that the presence of CW-2 on the day of alleged incident at the spot is highly doubtful and therefore, he should be considered as a planted witness to give benefit to the complainant, an advocate as being clerk of another advocate. Ld. defence counsel further submits that complainant is telling lie and improved his deposition as he has stated in his examination that accused slapped him again in presence of his colleagues saying the first slap was for you and the second for your advocacy but complainant never stated so in his first complaint dated 19.10.2006 and the present complaint before the court. Ld. defence counsel claimed that the said contradiction shows that complainant made after thought improvement to fulfill the lacuna in his case for securing conviction of accused at any cost. Ld. Defence counsel also submitted that CW-2 Dhani Lal was a clerk of fellow advocate Sh. Pankaj Kumar Singh and he allegedly went to railway station on 19.10.2006 to see off a known of his friend Pankaj Singh, but he did not purchase any platform ticket and he did not know the place where said person was going for. Further, Ld. Defence counsel argued that complainant had failed to examine any witness of railway station or produce any CCTV footage for proving his version of incident and statement of complainant cannot be relied upon as the same is based on false and frivolous story with vital improvements owing to superiority ego with malafide intention just CC No. 27/1 Page No. 4 of 21 to extort money illegally from the accused by harassing him through criminal case. Ld. defence counsel further stated that accused could not afford long drawn litigation for his official act in Delhi, triggered by complainant, who is a very assertive practicing advocate in Delhi, because accused is working as Head Constable in Cobra Battalion of CRPF in Naxal infested area of Chattisgarh, while putting his life under peril. Ld. defence counsel also argued that complainant had made mountain out of mole on the account of alleged minor incident of scuffle or slapping, which is compoundable in nature in eye of law and for that, accused had sought his mercy long back, which had been turned down for extraneous consideration, best known to complainant.
4. Last but not least, Ld. Counsel for accused strongly submits that Ld. Predecessor ought not have taken cognizance of alleged offence against accused CRPF Constable Subhash Chand for the want of sanction as envisaged U/s 197 (2) of Cr. PC and therefore, the whole subsequent proceedings against him are null and void and thus, he is entitled to be acquitted. Ld. Counsel for accused stated that accused had moved an application U/s 197(2) R/w Section 461 of Cr. PC for dropping the further proceedings against the accused Constable Subhash Chand on 06.06.2004 and same has been kept pending for disposal at the final decision of the case. Ld. defence counsel had placed much emphasis on point of lack of sanction for prosecution U/s 197 (2) of Cr. PC. He relied upon following judgment :-
1. Akhilesh Prasad Vs. UOI, AIR 1981 SC 806
2. D.T. Virupakshappa Vs. C. Subhash, Crl appeal No.722/2015, CC No. 27/1 Page No. 5 of 21 dated 27.04.2015 by the Supreme Court of India.
3. Girdhari Lal Vs. Lal Chand, AIR 1970 Rajasthan 143.
4. Baluni Dei Vs. State, AIR 1956 Orrisa 69
5. Pritam Singh Vs. Delhi Administration 1987 CRI. L.J 872
6. Ravinder Vs. V.K. Talwar 1989 CRI. L.J 191
5. On the other hand, Complainant forcefully contended that accused must be convicted for committing charged offence and no leniency should be shown to him as he was drunken of his power and unmindful of his duty as public servant. He also contends that accused had humiliated and harassed an innocent citizen at public place. He also submitted that there was no reasonable nexus between charged offence and assigned duty of accused. Accordingly, complainant contended that there was no need of any sanction for prosecuting accused for charged offence and for that, he relied upon following judgment : -
1. Fakhruzamma Vs. State of Jharkhand (2013) 15 SCC 552.
2. Nagraj Vs. State of Mysore dated 08.05.1963, AIR 1964 SC 269.
3. Urmila Devi Vs. Yudhvir Singh (2012) 3 SCC 624.
4. Mohan Prakash Dubey Vs. State 92 (2001) DLT 206.
6. Complainant further contended that act of slapping him by the accused could not be said to have been performed while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duties (vide Mohan Prakash Dubey (Supra)). Complainant also contended that no public servant can claim that committing any offence or resorting to harassment of citizens is part of his official duty per se. Accordingly, complainant demanded conviction of accused on the basis of his statement and CC No. 27/1 Page No. 6 of 21 that of CW-02 Dhanji Lal while insisting rejection of plea of defence qua protection U/s 197 of Cr PC in the name of being member of CRPF.
7. Having heard the rival contentions of both parties, the court is at pain to observe that both are hailing from very noble and challengeful professions and they are assigned with the pious duty to uphold and enforce the law, but unfortunately, in the present matter, both had to be at loggerhead with each other for doing some wrong in eye of criminal law in force in India. However, the court also owes solemn sovereign duty to decide the matter/dispute dispassionately, while applying prevailing objective law to the given facts and on the basis of material brought on record without being swayed away from any misplaced sympathy or anguish of the parties or their status in order to maintain rule of law, which inherently implies uniform application of ordinary law irrespective of positions of persons in conflict with it. The court is also mindful of old adage as to law is blind and it cannot see the person before it, when it comes to its application.
Appreciation :-
8. The presence of complainant as well as accused at New Delhi Railway Station are not disputed fact. It is also not in dispute that complainant was not having any reservation ticket nor had he filed copy of any type of ticket on the record of this case. In these circumstances, complainant is naturally expected to have tried to purchase the travel ticket at ticket counter. It is also admitted fact that there was Diwali festival around the day of incident and there would have been huge rush at the station. Accordingly, plea of CC No. 27/1 Page No. 7 of 21 accused CRPF Constable as to seeking of his help by the complainant near ticket counter in purchasing travel ticket at the railway station can not be ruled out as absolutely false. Complainant witness Dhanji Lal(CW-2) himself admitted that when he reached near ticket window, he had seen crowd of some passengers and police officials and after cutting inside the crowd, he saw accused slapping the complainant twice. Whereas, complainant (CW-1) claimed that accused slapped him at platform no.1 before he could reply the query of the accused regarding the purpose of standing at platform and accused again slapped him, when he told as to he was an advocate, after coming of 10-15 colleagues of accused including SI Vidya Singh to the spot. Here, the factum of the act of slapping by the accused without any lawful justification has to be established by the complainant beyond all reasonable doubt by leading sufficient reliable and admissible evidence.
9. In instant case, the presence of so-called independent witness CW-02 Dhanji Lal at the spot at the time of incident is doubtful as complainant admitted in his cross examination that complaint Ex. CW1/A and Ex.CW1/B do not have mentioning the name of Dhanji Lal. It is noticeable that the said complaints afford him earliest occasions for complainant to aver the fact with reasonable details. Moreover, CW-2 Dhanji Lal himself admitted that he was a clerk of advocate Sh. Pankaj Kumar Singh and he had not got any platform ticket. CW-02 failed to tell the name of the person, whom he had to see off at the Railway Station and the name of the place where that person concerned had to go. It is noticeable that complainant did not call SI Vidya Singh as witness in whose presence, incident in CC No. 27/1 Page No. 8 of 21 question had taken place. Ld. Defence counsel, thus, prays that accused should be acquitted as case of complainant is totally doubtful and full from afterthought improvements and also the court lacks jurisdiction to even take cognizance of the alleged offence in view of blanket bar to cognizance U/s 197 (2) of Cr. PC for want of permission of central government. Ld defence counsel contended that proceedings of this case should have been dropped long back in view of clear-cut bar U/s 197 (2) of Cr.PC to the cognizance by the court and therefore same became void ab-initio.
10. The most important legal plea, which has been pitted against the complainant is that the court should not have taken cognizance of alleged offence for want of sanction U/s 197 (2) of Cr.PC.
Complainant has relied upon said judgments as mentioned in Para.5 for countering the said plea of the defence. However, Fakhrujamma (supra) relates to need of sanction of prosecution U/s 197 Cr. PC against a public servant, who could be removed from the service by the competent authority without sanction of the government under rules of Jharkhand Police Manual. In Urmila Devi (Supra) the Supreme Court of India wondered that how a Executive Magistrate (SDM) would decide to barge into the house of a lady, that too at the odd hour of 10 PM accompanied by a pose of police officer with two video cameramen under the guise of ascertaining the truthfulness of complaint without registration of any case and any semblance of a lawful justification for such act of harassing and humiliating a lady and also subjecting to uncalled for medical examination. Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, held such act as indecent and abuse of the status because SDM can never be held to CC No. 27/1 Page No. 9 of 21 have acted within statutory frame work of law. The apex court in Urmila Devi, further held that even if complaint of adulterous relationship between appellant and RC Chopra had been received by SDM, the alleged acts of respondent can not be said to be in discharge of his official duty as same remained unsupported by lawful justification, especially, when the complaint does not disclose the commission of any offence triable by the Executive Magistrate or cognizable by the police.
In Nagraj (supra), the Supreme Court observed that the necessity of sanction would be considered, when the evidence recorded in the proceedings or the circumstances of the case for getting protection U/s 132 of Cr. PC of old Cr.PC and not the circumstances, which make the acts complained of, no offence. Accordingly, Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed in that case that the question of sanction of the government for prosecution of appellant has to be decided on the evidence of the case and not on the basis of evidence and interferences drawn in other case. In Mohan Prakash Dubey (Supra), upon which complainant laid great emphasis, it was observed that the question was whether the offence was committed in course of official duties or under colour of official duties would depend on the facts of the each case. In the judgment of Mohan Prakash Dubey (Supra) Hon'ble Delhi High Court also observed in para no.9 as under :-
" 9. In Gauri Shankar's Case (Supra) the facts were entirely different. In that case petitioner while working as SDM was supervisioning the removal of encroachment on public land, the demolition work was in progress, when it CC No. 27/1 Page No. 10 of 21 was alleged that 10/11 Constables rushed inside the clinic of complainant, abused him and dragged him out of clinic. In that circumstances, it was held that the offence was committed in course of same transaction, in which official duties were being performed or purported to be performed, which is not the case here. "
11. After careful scanning of the judgments, it appears that none of said cited authorities of complainant squarely applies to his case due to different set of facts and circumstances of instant case. In this case, from the testimony of CW-3 R.T. Praamhansh (DIG, CRPF) and DW-2 Sh. Vinay Kumar Sharma (Dy. Commandant cum Law Officer), it stands proved that accused Subhash Chand was a Constable in CRPF and he was deployed at New Delhi Railway Station on 19.10.2006 after 2:00 PM till 12:15 AM on 20.10.2006. In Akhilesh Prasad (Supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that CRPF squarely falls within the expression "Arms forces of the union" as used in Sub Section 2 of the Section 197 of Cr. P.C. In DT Virupakshappa (Supra) the Apex Court observed as under :-
" 6. The question, whether sanction is necessary or not, may arise on any stage of the proceedings, and in a given case, it may arise at the stage of inception as held by this Court in Om Prakash and others v. State of Jharkhand Through The Secretary, Department of Home, Ranchi 1 and another[1]. To quote:
"41. The upshot of this discussion is that whether sanction is necessary or not has to be decided CC No. 27/1 Page No. 11 of 21 from stage to stage. This question may arise at any stage of the proceeding. In a given case, it may arise at the inception. There may be unassailable and unimpeachable circumstances on record which may establish at the outset that the police officer or public servant was acting in performance of his official duty and is entitled to protection given under Section 197 of the Code. It is not possible for us to hold that in such a case, the court cannot look into any documents produced by the accused or the public servant concerned at the inception. The nature of the complaint may have to be kept in mind. It must be remembered that previous sanction is a precondition for taking cognizance of the offence and, therefore, there is no requirement that the accused must wait till the charges are framed to raise this plea. ..."
7. In the case before us, the allegation is that the appellant exceeded in exercising his power during investigation of a criminal case and assaulted the respondent in order to extract some information with regard to the death of one Sannamma, and in that connection, the respondent was detained in the police station for some time. Therefore, the alleged conduct has an essential connection with the discharge of the official duty. Under Section 197 of Cr PC, in case, the Government servant accused of an offence, which is alleged to have been committed by him while acting or CC No. 27/1 Page No. 12 of 21 purporting to act in discharge of his official duty, the previous sanction is necessary.
8. The issue of 'police excess' during investigation and requirement of sanction for prosecution in that regard, was also the subject matter of State of Orissa Through Kumar Raghvendra Singh and others v. Ganesh Chandra Jew[2], wherein, at paragraph-7, it has been held as follows:
"7. The protection given under Section 197 is to protect responsible public servants against the institution of possibly vexatious criminal proceedings for offences alleged to have been committed by them while they are acting or purporting to act as public servants. The policy of the legislature is to afford adequate protection to public servants to ensure that they are not prosecuted for anything done by them in the discharge of their official duties without reasonable cause, and if sanction is granted, to confer on the Government, if they choose to exercise it, complete control of the prosecution. This protection has certain limits and is available only when the alleged act done by the public servant is reasonably connected with the discharge of his official duty and is not merely a cloak for doing the objectionable act. If in doing his official duty, he acted in excess of his duty, but there is a reasonable connection between the act and the performance of the official duty, the excess will not be a sufficient ground to deprive the public CC No. 27/1 Page No. 13 of 21 servant of the protection. The question is not as to the nature of the offence such as whether the alleged offence contained an element necessarily dependent upon the offender being a public servant, but whether it was committed by a public [pic]servant acting or purporting to act as such in the discharge of his official capacity. Before Section 197 can be invoked, it must be shown that the official concerned was accused of an offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties. It is not the duty which requires examination so much as the act, because the official act can be performed both in the discharge of the official duty as well as in dereliction of it. The act must fall within the scope and range of the official duties of the public servant concerned. It is the quality of the act which is important and the protection of this section is available if the act falls within the scope and range of his official duty".
(Emphasis supplied)
9. In Om Prakash (supra), this Court, after referring to various decisions, particularly pertaining to the police excess, summed- up the guidelines at paragraph-32, which reads as follows:
"32. The true test as to whether a public servant was acting or purporting to act in discharge of his duties would be whether the act complained of was directly connected with his official duties or it was done in the discharge of his official duties or CC No. 27/1 Page No. 14 of 21 it was so integrally connected with or attached to his office as to be inseparable from it (K. Satwant Singh). The protection given under Section 197 of the Code has certain limits and is available only when the alleged act done by the public servant is reasonably connected with the discharge of his official duty and is not merely a cloak for doing the objectionable act. If in doing his official duty, he acted in excess of his duty, but there is a reasonable connection between the act and the performance of the official duty, the excess will not be a sufficient ground to deprive the public servant of the protection (Ganesh Chandra Jew).
If the above tests are applied to the facts of the present case, the police must get protection given under Section 197 of the Code because the acts complained of are so integrally connected with or attached to their office as to be inseparable from it. It is not possible for us to come to a conclusion that the protection granted under Section 197 of the Code is used by the police personnel in this case as a cloak for killing the deceased in cold blood."
(Emphasis supplied)
10. In our view, the above guidelines squarely apply in the case of the appellant herein. Going by the factual matrix, it is evident that the whole allegation is on police excess in connection with the investigation of a criminal case. The said CC No. 27/1 Page No. 15 of 21 offensive conduct is reasonably connected with the performance of the official duty of the appellant. Therefore, the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the case without the previous sanction of the State Government. The High Court missed this crucial point in the impugned order.
12. In DT Virupakshappa (Supra) case, complainant was picked up and brought to police station, where he was detained and directed that he should not be let out till he reveals or confesses that he is involved in the murder of one Sannamma. The allegation in case of DT Virupakshappa (Supra) was that appellant exceeded his power during investigation of a criminal case and assaulted the respondent in order to extract some information with regard to death one Sannamma. In DT Virupakshappa (Sura), their lordship held that the whole allegation is on police excess in connection with investigation of a criminal case and the said offensive conduct is reasonably connected with the performance of the official duty of the appellant. It was further held by the Apex court in said case that the Ld. Magistrate could not take cognizance of the said case without previous sanction of the state government.
13. In Girdhari Lal Vs. Lal Chand, AIR 1970 Rajasthan, 145 (V 57 C 33), it was observed that even if action is somewhat beyond the scope of official duty, it can be protected under the colour of office as the legislator had advisably used to expression "acting" and purporting to act. In Baluni Dei Vs. State AIR 1957 Orrisa 69 (V 44, C 19 April), complainant alleged that assistant surgeon slapped her CC No. 27/1 Page No. 16 of 21 husband and made some taunting remarks and after taking him to OT further assaulted him. However, Hon'ble High Court in that case held that the slaps given to the patient by assistant surgeon prior to his being taken to the operation theater and subsequent rough handling inside that theater form part of one transaction and it was in discharge of his duty and therefore protection given by 190 Cr.PC would be available to him.
14. In Pritam Singh Vs Delhi Administration 1987 Cri.L.J.872, police official prepared a challan against scooterist, who was driving without helmet but he was not allowed to go without recovery the composition money and it was alleged that he was manhandled and insulted by the police official in uniform at traffic duty. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in said case held that police officials were discharging their official duty and the alleged act of illegal detaining and further assaulting and insulting him, were acts done while discharging their official duty as there was reasonable connection between the alleged act and the discharge of official duty and hence sanction for their prosecution was necessary U/s 197 Cr.PC.
15. In Dr. Ravindra (Supra), an Additional Supdt. of police (an IPC officer), who was in charge of management of Simhastha fair at Ujjain, had slapped the petitioner while he came on prohibited route on his motorcycle. Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court held that on facts, offence could by no means be characterized as foreign to discharge of official duty of officer and therefore sanction for his prosecution was necessary.
16. In view of said discussion of fact and relevant law as well as CC No. 27/1 Page No. 17 of 21 cited authorities, this court is of considered view that the complainant could not prove his case beyond all shades of reasonable doubts keeping the above noted contradiction and vital improvements in testimony of complainant and his witness Dhanji Lal in mind. It is noteworthy that the complainant owes unalienable duty to prove his case against the accused by leading sufficient reliable and unblemished cogent admissible evidence. It is further noteworthy that jurisprudentially, the complainant or prosecution can not be allowed to take benefit in the lacuna of defence like accused did not produce the alleged torn uniform before the court or he had taken any false or after thought plea in course of trial because the case/story of the complainant has to stand on its own legs. The court is also mindful of basic tenant of Indian Criminal Jurisprudence as to benefit of any reasonable doubt must be given to the accused and in case of possibility of two versions of a case, the versions favouring the innocence of accused has to be opted by the court.
17. The court is of thoughtful view that the criminal trial has to take place only in accordance within the fourwalls of the provisions of Cr.P.C. and the criminal liability has to be construed strictly. The legislative intent behind making requirement of sanction from competent authority for cognizance and trial u/s. 197 Cr.P.C. was to protect public servant from unnecessary and unscrupulous trial for an act which may have some colour of crime as per letters of law, that might have been committed in effective performance of assigned official duty. Otherwise, any police official or public servant would hesitate to take any appropriate and urgent action as per requirement of situation and that might cause greater harm to CC No. 27/1 Page No. 18 of 21 the larger interest of the society and may also demoralize public servant. However, section 197 Cr.P.C. does not protect any malafide misdeed or act, not done with requisite care and caution. This Court is also of considered view that the issue of lack of sanction under section 197 Cr.P.C. can be raised at any point of time in course of trial as same would render proceedings void and proceedings may be dropped. Reference may be made to General Officer Commanding Vs. CBI, LAW (SC) 2012-5-2 and CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh, LAW (DLH) 1995-1-37.
18. Here, the court finds considerable force in the plea of accused as to he should not have been prosecuted because the court could not have taken even cognizance of the alleged offence without proper sanction U/s 197 (2) of Cr. PC. Here, it is undisputed fact that accused was a CRPF constable and he is member of arms forces of union U/s 197 (2) of Cr.PC vide Akhilesh Prasad (Supra). From the testimony of DW-2 Dy. Commandant Vinay Kumar Sharma it stood prove that accused was deployed at New Delhi Railway Station on 19.10.2006 from 2:00 PM till 12:15 AM of 20.10.2006. It is also undisputable fact that there was heavy rush at New Delhi Railway Station particularly in view of Diwali festival being around day of incident and para-military forces like CRPF personnels would have been deployed to manage and control the crowd at vital place of the station along with regular GRP and RPF staffs. In the instant case, complainant claimed that accused was furious due to heavy rush on the platform on account of festive season and he asked complainant as to the purpose of standing at the platform and before complaint could reply, he was slapped and abused by the accused. Here, it is CC No. 27/1 Page No. 19 of 21 not generally comprehensible that a sane person of reasonable prudence and wisdom would slap any unknown person/passenger at public place like Railway Station all of sudden without any reason/excuse. It is noticeable that it was suggested by the complainant during cross examination of accused (DW-01) that he objected to accused against Danda blow being given to some old person at the spot. Although, said old peson had not been called as complainant's witness.
19.Even if, the claim of complainant qua his grievances is assumed to be true, the alleged act of accused can not be held to be alien to the purported discharge of assigned duty of accused i.e to manage and control crowd and thereby maintains law and order at Railway Station. Here reference may be made to cases of Dr. Ravindra (Sura), Pritam Singh (Supra).
20. It is also noteworthy that charged offence under section 323 of IPC is punishable with upto one year imprisonment or fine of 1,000/- or both and section 468(2)(b) of cr.p.c also bars cognizance by the court beyond limitation period of one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year. In present case, the alleged offence in question had been committed way back on 19/10/2006 and there is no requisite previous sanction of the central government as stipulated under section 197(2) of Cr.P.C till today. It is further noticeable that Notice had been framed and trial had already been finished in this case. In view of these legal embargos and factual positions, dropping of proceedings for sanction for prosecution would also serve no fruitful legal purpose.
20. In upshot of said discussion of facts, material available on CC No. 27/1 Page No. 20 of 21 record, reasons and relevant law as well as referred authorities, this court is of considered view that the accused is required to be acquitted in present case. The court, therefore, returns the finding of acquittal in the case and accordingly, it stands disposed off.
Announced in the open court Rakesh Kumar Rampuri 0n 25/07/2016. MM-08(Central)/THC/Delhi CC No. 27/1 Page No. 21 of 21 CC No. 27/1 Page No. 22 of 21