IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2010 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 88 of 2007(A) ----------------------------------------- [CMP.NO.4403/2006 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, TRIVANDRUM] .................... REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------------------- A. LEELAMMA, SECRETARY, SOCIETY FOR PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS (SPCA), SPCA COMPLEX, P.M.G. JUNCTION, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADVS. MR.V.RAJAGOPAL, MR.G.GOPAKUMAR (TVM), MR.K.N.CHATHKKUTTY. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. DR. K.G.MURALI, CHIEF VETERINRY OFFICER, DISTRICT VETERINARY HOSPITAL, P.M.G JUNCTION, TRIVANDRUM. 3. K. MURALEEDHARAN NAIR, SENIOR VETERINARY SURGEON, DISTRICT VETERINARY HOSPITAL, PMG JUNCTION, TRIVANDRUM. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. REKHA.C.NAIR. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.88 of 2007. = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 9th day of March, 2010. O R D E R The revision petitioner is the Secretary of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. She preferred a complaint as CMP.No.4403/2006 against respondents 2 and 3 alleging offence under Section 457, 425 and 380 IPC. It is with an allegation that the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was working in a building wherein the District Veterinary Hospital was situated and that respondents 2 and 3 committed criminal trespass and damaged the building occupied by the revision petitioner and stolen away certain articles stated in complaint including the ambulance belonging to the Society. 2. The learned Magistrate by the impugned order dated 14.11.2006 dismissed the complaint under Sec.203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on arriving a finding that the building said to have been occupied by the revision Crl.R.P.No.88 of 2007. -: 2 :- petitioner was a public building and that respondents 2 and 3, who are public servants evicted the revision petitioner indischarge of the official duties in pursuance of a Government Order, copy of which is marked as Annexure- A2 and that the prosecution is bad for want of sanction under Sec.197 Crl.P.C. and that no offence was disclosed. 3. On hearing the revision petitioner, I find that the so called process of eviction was done by respondents 2 and 3 in exercise of the discharge of the official duty as the Chief Veterinary Officer as well as the Senior Veterinary Officer and they were executing Annexure-A2 Government Order. In that circumstance, before prosecuting respondents 2 and 3, who are public servants, for an act done as part of the official duties, sanction under Sec.197 Crl.P.C. ought to have been obtained. Admittedly no sanction was sought for. Hence the prosecution is bad for want of notice under Sec.197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Lower court was correct in arriving at such Crl.R.P.No.88 of 2007. -: 3 :- conclusion. 4. In the event respondents 2 and 3 entered the building said to have been occupied by the revision petitioner and belonging to the Government and even if any articles were removed in the process of eviction in pursuance of the Government Order, it would not amount to criminal house trespass, mischief or theft. Entry to the premises and removal of the articles were done in good faith. No criminal intention is inferable. Going by the order impugned, I find no illegality, error or impropriety so as to interfere with in exercise of the revisional powers. The revision petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. P.S.GOPINATHAN (Judge) Kvs/-