IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 24TH AUGUST 2009 / 2ND BHADRA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2707 of 2009() ------------------------------ CMP.478/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------- ANIL KUMAR, S/O.JANARDHANAN NAIR, THANNIYARTHAI VEEDU, MOTTAMOODU, NARUVAMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, (NOW RESIDING AT TC 4/171 (6), CHLRA-D8, KURAVANKONAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.S.BABU GIREESAN RESPONDENTS/ STATE AND ACCUSED 1&2: ------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. SAHIR, CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THAMPANOOR POLICE STATION. 3. SHARAFUDEEN, ASST.COMMISSIONER, DCRB, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: SRI C S HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2707 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 24th day of August 2009 ORDER Heard counsel for petitioner and Public Prosecutor. Notice to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is dispensed with since the complaint was dismissed before issuing process to them. 2. Grievance of petitioner is that in connection with the double murder case, petitioner was taken into custody on 14-10-2007 based on a confession statement allegedly given by accused No.2, he was kept in illegal custody, manhandled, criminally intimidated and his arrest was recorded on 15-10-2007. He was produced before learned magistrate on 16-10-2007 and remanded to judicial custody. Learned counsel says that petitioner was in custody for about 67 days and after release, he preferred a complaint in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class-3, Thiruvananthapuram alleging offences punishable under sections 203, 307, 323, 342 and 506(2) r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the Code”). Learned magistrate recorded the statement of petitioner and his wife but dismissed the complaint for the reason that sanction under section 197 of the Code is not obtained. learned counsel contends that the allegation against the accused Nos.2 and 3 do not come within the mischief of section 197 of the Code. 3. Certainly, if alleged act is in the discharge of official duty or Crl.R.P.No.2707 of 2009 2 while purporting act in the discharge of such duty respondent Nos.2 and 3 are entitled to protection under section 197 of the Code. The wording of the section cannot be given a narrow interpretation. It is sufficient that the act alleged is reasonably connected with the discharge of official duty. What is relevant is the quality of the act alleged. In such case, the accused concerned is entitled to the protection under section 197 of the Code. But it is seen that learned magistrate has not adverted to the allegations in the complaint before deciding that sanction under section 197 of the Code is not required. Since the order under challenge is not a speaking order with reference to averments in the complaint and the scope of section 197 of the Code, without making any observation as to the contentions raised by the petitioner or as to necessity for sanction under section 197 of the Code, I am inclined to set aside the order and remit the case to the court below for fresh consideration and to pass appropriate orders. This revision petition is allowed and the matter is remitted to the court below for fresh consideration and to pass appropriate orders as circumstances warranted. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/