Govinda Pillai, J.
1. The complainants are the revision petitioners. The counter petitioner is the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kuthiathodu. The case of the complainants was that they were belaboured by the counter-petitioner, voluntarily causing hurt to them, and they were also wrongfully confined in the virandah of the Police Station for about four hours. A case was therefore registered under Sections 323 and 342, Travancore Penal Code. Summons of the case was issued to the accused who appeared and objected to the complaint as the requisite Government sanction under Section 194(1), Criminal P. C. (Travancore) and under Section 70, Police Act, had not been obtained for lodging the complaint. The lower court upheld the objections and dismissed the complaint.
2. There was a case C. C. 18 of 1950 against the complainants that they sold one bag of rice in black market after creating false entries in their account books. The first accused is a licensed ration merchant and the second accused is his employee. One of the ration cards for which rice was said to have been supplied was held by one Damodaran. The Police had obtained the same from Damodaran and prepared a mahazar regarding; the entries therein and returned it to him for purchasing further ration articles. When Damodar an presented the ration card to the complainants they refused to return the same with the object of manipulating the entries therein. He complained to the Police and the complainants were called to the Police Station for being questioned.
It was the complainants' case that they were wrongfully confined and belaboured in the Police Station varandah when they went there on the summons of the Police Inspector, In the matter of questioning the accused the Inspector was only doing his duty and for that purpose he might have detained them for some time. The case that they were belaboured while they were being questioned was answered by the learned Government Pleader that even if that be true it must be held to have been done in the discharge of the duty by the Police Inspector. He had relied on the ruling in - 'Ramachandra Rao v. Chinnayya Goundan' AIR 1942 Mad 664 (1) (A) and that supports the position taken up by him. Normally therefore sanction was required for prosecuting the Inspector.
If an act was done by a Government servant not acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his duty, certainly he is liable to be prosecuted without any sanction. The Pull Bench ruling of the Travancore High Court in - '18 Trav LT 326 (FB) (B)' is an authority for that position. In that case a Police Inspector had confined a person in custody for the purpose of extorting a confession. This was clearly not the duty of the Police Inspector and in such circumstances no sanction was necessary. Relying on the Madras ruling mentioned above, I would hold that for the present case sanction should have been obtained by the complainants. The order of the lower Court is confirmed and this petition is dismissed.