Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)P K Pradhan vs The State Of Sikkim Represented By The on 24 July, 2001
3. Learned counsel relying on the decision of the Apex
Court in P.K. Pradhan v. State of Sikkim (AIR 2001 SC
2547) argued that the question cannot be decided without
giving opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence and only
CRRP3406/08 3
after recording evidence the question of sanction should have
been decided especially when the learned Magistrate found that
the question can be considered after recording the evidence.
Section 167 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Sunil Kumar & Others vs State Of Kerala And Others
Petitioner is the complainant in C.C.578 of 2006 on the
file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Perumbavoor. He filed a
complaint alleging that second respondent, the Sub Inspector of
Police, Kalady Police Station committed offences under section
167 and 471 of Indian Penal Code. The allegation in the
complaint is that on 3.6.2004 at about 6.55 p.m. second
respondent intercepted the lorry loaded with sand owned by the
petitioner and even though the driver of the vehicle showed the
pass, he did not release the lorry and wrongfully confined the
lorry and the driver to the police station till the driver was
released at 1.30 p.m. and lorry was produced before the District
Collector and petitioner filed writ petition 1755 of 2004 to get
the vehicle released and second respondent committed the
offences alleged. When learned Magistrate took cognizance of
the offences, second respondent filed M.P.3331 of 2006 for an
order of discharge contending that the act was done in
performance of his official duty and in discharge of his official
CRRP3406/08 2
duty and he is entitled to the protection under section 197 of
Cr.P.C. and without sanction he cannot be prosecuted. Learned
Magistrate on the materials dismissed the applicaiton stating
that it is a matter to be decided after recording the evidence.
Second respondent challenged the order before Sessions Court,
Ernakulam in Crl. R.P.1 of 2008. Learned Sessions Judge on
reappreciation of evidence found that the act alleged was done
in discharge of his official duty as Sub Inspector of police,
Kalady and therefore sanction under section 197(1) of Code of
Criminal Procedure is mandatory. Learned Sessions Judge
relied on the decisions of this Court in Sunil Kumar v. State of
Kerala (2007 (4) KLT 359) and Shoukkathali v. State of
Kerala (2005 (3) KLT 634). Revision and M.P.3331 of 2006
were allowed and the proceedings were dropped as against
second respondent. This revision petition is filed under section
397 read with section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 401 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
1