JSB CHANDEL VS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Facts of the case –

As per the consideration of all the facts and the circumstances of the incident, the petition has been filed by the petitioner under section 482 Cr P. C., 302, 120- B Ipc (read with section 34 of ipc) with the claiming the allegation that the Defendent J. S. B. Chandel and other were

police officers who were accused of illegal detention and assaulting of two men named : Chota gudda (Rajkumaar) and his friend Bhupendra Sharma .

As per the facts police officer JSB Chandel and his fellow members (other police officers) intercepted both of them on their way(while crossing the mundna river) and started firing on them . Through the action of police officers chota gudda Resultantly succumbed.

The two men who were victim in the case alleged that the police officers beaten and

physically Torture them during the period of police custody. And as per the petitioner the police converted and covered the story in the curtains of a fake encounter but they were murdered by the public servants (p.o.)

The Magistrate, however, ruled that the police officers had not produced the two men before the Magistrate within 24 hours of their arrest, as required by law.As a result, the Magistrate

held that the police officers had illegally detained the two men and that they could not be prosecuted without the prior sanction of the government.

ISSUE ARISES IN THE CASE –

The issue in the case of J.S.B. Chandel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 January, 2022 was whether the accused police officers were required to obtain sanction from the State Government before they could be prosecuted for offences alleged to have been committed by them while acting or purporting to act in discharge of their official duty.

Arguments –

The arguments of the case J.S.B. Chandel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 January, 2022 were as follows:

Arguments of the prosecution:

The prosecution side panel lawyer Sri Gangrade argued that the accused police omcers were need to obtain sanction from the State Government before they could be prosecuted for the offences alleged against them. They argued that the offences alleged against the accused

police officers were committed in the course of their official duty, and therefore, Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applied.The prosecution also argued that the defence had not shown any reason why the sanction of the State Government should be waived. They

argued that the offences alleged against the accused police officers were serious, and that there was a likelihood that they would be prejudiced if they were not allowed to challenge the defendent without the sanction of the State Government.

Arguments of the Defendent :

The Defendant side learned senior council Sri Datt argued that the chota gudda was already a criminal personality proving by his previous 36 cases filed on him making him such. And as well as he was an Abscounder. In this circumstances of the case chota gudda was released on

parole with suffering life imprisonment he has been convicted for the offence punishable

Under Section 302/34 of IPC and Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. But after the period of parole he didn’t surrender himself instead of absconded.

In this situation the police officers making the team for catch chota gudda .(Reward of Rs.10,000/- was announced on his arrest.

Here in this case,the deceased was a convicted accused released on parole and was

proclaimed absconder as he did not surrender after the expiry of parole period. 36 cases of heinous crime including murder, dacoity and attempt to murder registered against him, reward of Rs.10,000/- on his Arrest had been announced. It is needless to note that if an

the accused is an absconder and the police personnel Are trying to arrest him, the said act is considered to be an act done during discharge of their omcial duties. In the present case, the prosecution is not disputing the fact that his son Chhota Gudda was a convicted accused, released on parole and also facing Several criminal cases.Inspector General of Police, a team was constituted to arrest the deceased and in furtherance to the said order accused party was Intercepted by the police team and then deceased Sustained injuries by the police weapons and eventually Succumbed. Therefore, openly and undoubtedly the nexus is fully established that the alleged offence and its commission is within the discharge of omcial

duties by the police personnel. The object of Section 197 of Cr.P.C., is to save omcials from vexatious proceedings Against judges, magistrates and public servant and to protect public servant from needless harassment so as To provide them protection so that they may

perform public duty honestly and to the best of their abilities because the threat of prosecution demoralises the honest omcer.

JUDGEMENT –

The judgment of the case J.S.B. Chandel vs The State of Madhya Pradesh on 14 January 2022 was delivered by Justice Sanjay Yadav. The case was filed by J.S.B. Chandel, a retired police officer, challenging the order of the State Government refusing to grant him sanction to

prosecute two police officers for the alleged offence of murder.

The State Government refused to grant sanction to prosecute the two police officers on the ground that the offence was committed by them while acting in discharge of their official

duty. J.S.B. Chandel challenged the order of the State Government in the High Court.

The High Court held that the State Government was justified in refusing to grant sanction to prosecute the two police officers. The Court observed that the initial arrest of the suspected offenders was legal, but the later conduct of the police officers of not producing them within 24 hours of their arrest before the Magistrate became illegal. However, even otherwise, the offence allegedly committed by the police officers was considered within the ambit of

discharge of their duties in their official capacity.

The Court also held that the complainant had failed to establish that the encounter was fake. The Court observed that the report submitted by the Magistrate and the findings of the Human Rights Commission were sufficient to conclude that the encounter was genuine.

The High Court dismissed the petition filed by J.S.B. Chandel. Here are the key takeaways from the judgment:

The State Government is justified in refusing to grant sanction to prosecute a public servant for an offence committed while acting in discharge of his official duty.The burden of proof to establish that an encounter was fake lies on the complainant.The report submitted by a Magistrate and the findings of the Human Rights Commission are relevant factors to consider in determining whether an encounter was genuine.

REFERENCE

Http://indiankanoon.org

This article is written by Vidhi Bharti, 3rd year student of Sri Ramswaroop University, intern at legal vidhiya.

Admin