IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2011 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 965 of 2011() ----------------------------------------- C.M.P.8992/2010 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, NEYYATTINKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/ PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------------- DEEPIN, S/O MOHANAN, KANDARATHALAYKAL PUTHEN VEEDU, VAZHUTHOOR, PERUMPAZHUTHOOR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR RESPONDENT(S)/ COUNTER PETITIONERS & STATE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.THANKACHAN, ADDITIONAL SUB INSPECTOR, NEYYATTINKARA POLICE STATION. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.PIN- 695 532. 2. ALEX, HEAD CONSTABLE, NEYYATTINKARA POLICE STATION. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.PIN- 695 532. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEK CHAND THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts V.K.MOHANAN, J ------------------------------- Crl.R.P.NO.965 OF 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of April, 2011. ORDER Challenging the order dismissing the complaint, the complainant preferred this revision petition. 2. I have heard Sri. Pirappancode V.S. Sudhir, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and also the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. According to the revision petitioner he purchased a Mini lorry bearing registration No.KL-16-4947 TATA SFC 40 on 14.8.2010 and it is the further case of the revision petitioner that on 24.9.2010 at about 6.a.m while the vehicle was washing, the accused came with a JCB at the place of occurrence and the driver of the JCB pushed the vehicle into a deep water of the river. It is the further allegation of the complainant that since he had requested the accused to lift the vehicle from the river the accused registered crime No.1336/2010 in the Neyyattinkara Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 12 and 10 r/w Section 20 Crl.R.P.NO.965 OF 2010 2 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Sand Act. Thus, according to the complainant by the mischief committed in the accused, the complainant has sustained heavy loss and thus the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 427 and Section 34 of IPC. 4. The sworn statement of the revision petitioner/complainant and two witnesses were recorded. The learned Magistrate after considering the allegation contained in the complaint and the sworn statement of the witnesses and the complaint, came into the conclusion that there is nothing to infer that the accused has got any previous animosity against the complainant. The learned Magistrate further inferred that the accused persons were attached to the Police department came to the place of occurrence as part of their official duty, especially when the complainant has no explanation as to how the accused came to the place of occurrence with JCB. Thus, the learned Magistrate by applying his judicial mind came to the Crl.R.P.NO.965 OF 2010 3 conclusion that the accused who are police personnel proceeded towards the vehicle, which was involved in illegal sand mining. Thus, according to the learned Magistrate the alleged incident was taken place during the discharge of the official duty of the accused and therefore, in the absence of proper sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C, the complaint cannot be proceed further against the accused. It was under the above factual back ground and legal defect of the complaint and assigning proper reason, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint. 5. Counsel for the revision petitioner vehemently submitted that in fact the vehicle in question was pushed down by the police by using the JCB under a wrong notion that the vehicle was used for illegal mining of sand from the river. According to the learned counsel, the question as to who pushed down the vehicle to the river is a question of fact to be considered on the basis of the evidence to be adduced during the trial. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the vehicle was in Crl.R.P.NO.965 OF 2010 4 question detected by the Police during their patrol duty and at the time of the detection of the vehicle, which involved in the crime, the Police was not having any JCB. The JCB was brought to the place of occurrence, when the petitioner pushed down the vehicle to the river water and subsequently the earnest attempt made by the Police to take out the vehicle from the deep water resulted in vien and certain persons sustained injuries also. Thus, according to the learned Public Prosecutor the sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C was absolutely inevitable as a condition precedent. 6. From the facts indicated above, it appears that the revision petitioner has no specific case that the alleged incident was taken place due to any previous animosity towards the petitioner. Therefore, the observation made by the learned Magistrate, that the circumstances under which the accused came to the place of occurrence with JCB is not explained by the revision petitioner, appears to be reasonable and relevant. The Crime No.1336/2010 was Crl.R.P.NO.965 OF 2010 5 registered against the revision petitioner would further show that the alleged incident was taken place, even if the same is considered as true, during the time of discharge the official duty of the accused and therefore, a valid sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C is necessary as a condition to take cognizance for the offence alleged against the accused who are police officials. From the facts and circumstances indicated sufficient to draw a presumption that the present complaint as a counter blast to the crime registered against the revision petitioner. Under the above circumstances, I find no merit in the revision petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE pm