IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2081 OF 2007 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2081 OF 2007 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2081 OF 2007 Shekhar Ramdas Bagde & ors..... Petitioner versus Azad Balwant Avhad & anr...... Respondent. Shri A.R.Shaikh for the petitioner. Shri S.R. Shinde APP for State. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED; 4TH FEBRUARY, 2008 DATED; 4TH FEBRUARY, 2008 DATED; 4TH FEBRUARY, 2008 P.C.; P.C.; P.C.; 1. The present petitioners are police personnel attached to City Police Station, Malegaon. The present respondent no.1 was arrested and taken in custody by the police and when he was produced before the judicial Magistrate, First Class on the next day, the respondent no.1 made grievance that he was assaulted and tortured in the police lock up. The JMFC after following the procedure referred the respondent no.1 for medical examination. After recording the examination of the medical officer and some other witnesses as the court was primafacie convinced about the commission of offence by the present petitioner, process/summons was issued. The same was questioned by filing a revision mainly on the ground that the JMFC would not have taken cognizance of the offence in the absence of a sanction from the government under section 197 of Cr.P.C. The petitioners had contended that the act complained of, is connected with the duty and as such prior sanction was must. Repelling the said submission the Sessions Judge has held that a police officer has no authority to assault or torture a prisoner who is in lock up, and the act complained of, has no nexus with the discharge of duty or purported discharge of duty. For reaching this conclusion the Sessions Judge has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in P.P. P.P. P.P. Unnikrishnan and anr. Vs. Puttiyattil Alikutty & Unnikrishnan and anr. Vs. Puttiyattil Alikutty & Unnikrishnan and anr. Vs. Puttiyattil Alikutty & anr. reported in AIR 2000 S.C. 2952. anr. reported in AIR 2000 S.C. 2952. anr. reported in AIR 2000 S.C. 2952. It appears to be a settled position in law and the same view was taken by three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in in in State of Maharashtra Vs. Atma Ram and ors. reported State of Maharashtra Vs. Atma Ram and ors. reported State of Maharashtra Vs. Atma Ram and ors. reported in AIR 1966 S.C. 1786. in AIR 1966 S.C. 1786. in AIR 1966 S.C. 1786. In this view of the matter, as there is no substance in the Writ Petition, the same is summarily dismissed. ...