Case: Som Chand Sanghvi Vs. Bibhuti Bhusan Chakravarty

to Burrabazar police station along with another Sub-Inspector S. Bhattacharya, visited his residence, searched his house and arrested him. Neither of them had any warrant with them for the search of the house or for the arrest of the appellant. Upon enquiry by him from these persons they told him that this was being done under the orders of the respondent. After his arrest the appellant said that he was taken to the Burrabazar police station at about 7.00 a. m. and then to Jorasanko police station and produced before T. K. Talukdar, Sub-Inspector in charge of that police station. From there he was taken to various places in Calcutta with a rope tied round his waist by Kundu and Bhattacharya and was eventually produced at about 12 noon before the respondent and in his office at Lalbazar. There the respondent started threatening the appellant and asked him to settle the dispute with Manoharlal Seth and pay him Rs. 5000/- or to acknowledge in writing that he would pay this sum of money to Manoharlal Seth. At about 3.30 p. m. on the same day his brother Iswarilal accompanied by a lawyer Chakravaty visited the respondents office and sought the appellants release on bail as the offence was bilabile one. The respondent, however, refused to grant bail saying that no bail would be granted until a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was paid to Manoharlal Seth. The appellant says that he was detained at Lalbazar police station till 8.00 p.m. From there he was taken to Jorasanko police station and kept in the lock-up for the whole night. On the next day, that is, August 4, 1960 he was again produced before the respondent at Lalbazar where the latter repeated his threats and that after obtaining his finger prints and taking his photographs he was taken to the court of the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate where he was released on bail at about 2.30 p.m. 5. On August 19, 1960 the appellant preferred a complaint before the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta under S. 348 and S. 220, I. P. C., and S. 13C of the Calcutta Police Act, 1866. In so far as two of the persons named as accused therein, S. I. Kundu and S. I. Talukdar, he decided to issue process against him under S. 220 I. P. C. and S. 13C of the Calcutta Police Act. As regards the respondent, he decided to issue process against him under S. 348, I. P .C. Upon a revision application preferred by the respondent the High Court quashed the process issued against him by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate. The ground urged before the High Court on behalf of the respondent was that before he could be proceeded against sanction of the State Government under S. 197, Cr. P. C. ought to have been obtained. This contention was upheld by the High Court. 6. On behalf of the appellant Mr. Sukumar Ghose contends that the High Court in quashing the process has proceeded to decide on the merits of the case even though there was no material before it to do so and that therefore is judgment cannot stand.7. It is true that for considering whether S. 197, Cr. P. C. would apply the Court must confine itself to the allegations made in the complaint. But that does not mean that it need not look beyond the form in which the allegations have been made and is incompetent to ascertain for itself their substance. Here the substantial allegation is that the respondent questioned the appellant when he was produced at his office in Lalbazar, asked him to restore Rs. 5,000/- to Manoharlal Seth who had lodged a complaint of cheating against the appellant and two others and that he declined to release him on bail. No doubt the appellant has made a grievance in his complaint that the respondent said that the appellant would not be released on bail unless he either paid the amount or acknowledged in writing his liability to pay this amount. Assuming that the allegation is true all that the thing boils down to is that the respondent refused to enlarge the appellant on bail and that he wanted the appellant to settle the matter with Manoharlal Seth. It cannot be disputed that whether a person charged with an offence should or should not be released on bail was a matter within the discretion of the respondent and if while exercising a discretion he acted illegally by saying that bail would not be granted unless the appellant did something which the appellant was not bound to do, the respondent cannot be said to have acted otherwise than in his capacity as a public servant. For this reason the sanction of the appropriate authority for the respondents prosecution was necessary under S. 197, Cr. P. C. 8. Mr. Ghose, however, contends that the appellants detention in the respondents office was illegal and that, therefore, the respondent could not be said to have been in a position to exercise any lawful authority with respect to him. It is difficult to appreciate how the appellants detention could be said to be illegal because it was in pursuance of the investigation of the complaint lodged by Manoharlal Seth that he was arrested and brought for interrogation before the respondent. It was not disputed before us that investigation into Manoharlals complaint had been ordered though there is a dispute as to whether it was ordered by the respondent or by the Deputy Commissioner of Police. Whether it was by one or the other makes little difference. We would like to make it clear that Mr. Ghose did not contend before us that the appellants detention in the office of the respondent was illegal because his initial arrest was without a warrant. But we may point out that a police officer is legally empowered to arrest a person alleged to have committed an offence under S. 420, I. P. C. without a warrant.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]7. It is true that for considering whether S. 197, Cr. P. C. would apply the Court must confine itself to the allegations made in the complaint. But that does not mean that it need not look beyond the form in which the allegations have been made and is incompetent to ascertain for itself their substance. Here the substantial allegation is that the respondent questioned the appellant when he was produced at his office in Lalbazar, asked him to restore Rs. 5,000/- to Manoharlal Seth who had lodged a complaint of cheating against the appellant and two others and that he declined to release him on bail. No doubt the appellant has made a grievance in his complaint that the respondent said that the appellant would not be released on bail unless he either paid the amount or acknowledged in writing his liability to pay this amount. Assuming that the allegation is true all that the thing boils down to is that the respondent refused to enlarge the appellant on bail and that he wanted the appellant to settle the matter with Manoharlal Seth. It cannot be disputed that whether a person charged with an offence should or should not be released on bail was a matter within the discretion of the respondent and if while exercising a discretion he acted illegally by saying that bail would not be granted unless the appellant did something which the appellant was not bound to do, the respondent cannot be said to have acted otherwise than in his capacity as a public servant. For this reason the sanction of the appropriate authority for the respondents prosecution was necessary under S. 197, Cr. P. CIt is difficult to appreciate how the appellants detention could be said to be illegal because it was in pursuance of the investigation of the complaint lodged by Manoharlal Seth that he was arrested and brought for interrogation before the respondent. It was not disputed before us that investigation into Manoharlals complaint had been ordered though there is a dispute as to whether it was ordered by the respondent or by the Deputy Commissioner of Police. Whether it was by one or the other makes little difference. We would like to make it clear that Mr. Ghose did not contend before us that the appellants detention in the office of the respondent was illegal because his initial arrest was without a warrant. But we may point out that a police officer is legally empowered to arrest a person alleged to have committed an offence under S. 420, I. P. C. without a warrant.