# SOM CHAND SANGHVI v. BIBHUTI BHUSAN CHAKRA VARTY

- **Citation:** [1964] 6 S.C.R. 275
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1961-01-10
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 90 of 1961
- **Bench:** K. SuBBA RAo, J. R. MuDHOLKAR
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/som-chand-sanghvi-v-bibhuti-bhusan-chakra-varty-3077
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

·Code of C1·imi11al J'rocedure, 1898 (Act 5 of 1898), s. 191·->l"COP• o/
The appellant made a complaint against the respondent, an Auistaat
Commissioner of Police for having committed an offence under s. 348,
Indian Penal Code, alleging that on the arrest of the appellant under
s. 1208/420 Indian PeIJal Code, the respondent had refused to grant him
bail until a c.crtain i:.um was paid or acknowledged in writing to be paid
to the complainant. The Chief Presidency Magistrate issued process. Oa
revision, the liigh Court quashed the process holding that sanction of. the
State Government under s. 197 Code of Criminal Procedure ought to haYC
been obtained. On appeal by special leave. it was contended that the High
Court in quashing the process had proceeded to decide on the merits of
the case even though there was no material before it and therefore iii
judgment could not stand.
Held:
(i) For considering whether s. 197 Code of Criminal Proc.
-tiure would apply the Court must confine itself to the allegations made ia
the complaint. But that does not mean that it need not look beyond U.
form in which the allegations have been made and is incompetent to 1111ce.rtain for itself their substance.
(ii)
The .sanction of the appropriate authority for the respondeat't
pr03ecution was necessary under s. 197 Code of CriminaJ Procedure. Whether a person chargetl with an offence should or should not be relcad
on bail was a matter within the discretion of the respondent and if whilt
exercising a discretion he acted illegally by saying that bail would not be
granted unless the appellant did something which the appellant waa DOt
~ound to do, the respondent cannot be said to have acted otbenrile Illa
in bis capacity as a public servant.

## Text

'6 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
275
SOM CHAND SANGHVI
v.
BIBHUTI BHUSAN CHAKRA VARTY
(K. SuBBA RAo AND J. R. MuDHOLKAR JJ.)
·Code of C1·imi11al J'rocedure, 1898 (Act 5 of 1898), s. 191·->l"COP• o/
The appellant made a complaint against the respondent, an Auistaat
Commissioner of Police for having committed an offence under s. 348,
Indian Penal Code, alleging that on the arrest of the appellant under
s. 1208/420 Indian PeIJal Code, the respondent had refused to grant him
bail until a c.crtain i:.um was paid or acknowledged in writing to be paid
to the complainant. The Chief Presidency Magistrate issued process. Oa
revision, the liigh Court quashed the process holding that sanction of. the
State Government under s. 197 Code of Criminal Procedure ought to haYC
been obtained. On appeal by special leave. it was contended that the High
Court in quashing the process had proceeded to decide on the merits of
the case even though there was no material before it and therefore iii
judgment could not stand.
Held:
(i) For considering whether s. 197 Code of Criminal Proc.
-tiure would apply the Court must confine itself to the allegations made ia
the complaint. But that does not mean that it need not look beyond U.
form in which the allegations have been made and is incompetent to 1111ce.rtain for itself their substance.
(ii)
The .sanction of the appropriate authority for the respondeat't
pr03ecution was necessary under s. 197 Code of CriminaJ Procedure. Whether a person chargetl with an offence should or should not be relcad
on bail was a matter within the discretion of the respondent and if whilt
exercising a discretion he acted illegally by saying that bail would not be
granted unless the appellant did something which the appellant waa DOt
~ound to do, the respondent cannot be said to have acted otbenrile Illa
in bis capacity as a public servant.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 90 of 1961.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order
dated January 10, 1961, of the Calcutta High Court ill
Criminal Revision No. 1545 of 1960.
Sukumar Ghose, for the appellant.
D. N. Mukherjee, for the respondent.
s. C. Sanglivl
...
llbhutl
Bhushan
Chakravarty
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[rg64J
January 21, 1964. The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
MunHOLKAR. J.-This is an appeal against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court quashing the issue lof
I. process against the respondent.
The respondent is an Assistant Commissioner of Police
in the City of Calcutta and the appellant had made a
complaint against him alleging that he had committed an
offence under s. 348, l.P.C. that is, wrongful confinement in
order to extort a confession or compel
restoration of
property.
The facts as alleged by the appellant are as follows:
One Manohar!al Seth had lodged a complaint on July
28, 1960 against him and two other persons Fatehlal and
Jaichand for offences under s. 120B/420, I.P.C. and S· 420
l.P.C. Manoharlal Seth had alleged in his complaint that
these persons had induced him to purchase a bar of brass
for Rs. 6,000 on the representation that it was of gold
and thus duped him.
Upon this complaint, investigation
was taken up by the police. He came to know Manoharlal
Seth in the course of his business.
They were on quite
friendly terms in the beginning and later on considerable
differences arose between him and Manoharlal Seth. As a
result of that Manoharlal Seth told him that unless
he
settled his differences with Manoharlal Seth according to the
latter's dictates he would put him into trouble through his
friend, the respondent, and that it is because of this that
Manoharlal lodged a complaint against him for cheating.
This complaint was thus a false complaint and it is common
ground that ultimately it was dismissed by the Presidency
Magistrate, 8th Court, Calcutta on January 2, 1961.
'
Then according to the appellant, on August 3, 1960 at
about 6-00 A.M. P. C. Kundu,, Sub-Inspector of Police
attached 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:
6 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
277
arrest of the appellant.
Upon enquiry by him from these
l!IM
persons they told him. that this was being done under the s. c. s..n,lirl
-0rders of the respondent. After his arrest the apellant said BibhJ1ti "·Bhw,._
that he was taken to the Burrabazar police station at about
Chakrt1•11tl1
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 vanous 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 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. 5,000 or to acknowle<jge 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 Chakravarthy visited the resr,Jondent's office and sought
the appellant's release on bail as the offence was a bailable
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.
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. I 3C of the Calcutta Police
Act, 1866.
In so far as two of the persons named as
accused therein, S. I. Kun du and S. I. Talukda:, he decided
to issu~ process against them 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
Mudholkar '·
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1g64J
1964
the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate. The ground urged
s. c. S...,hvi before the High Court on behalf of the respondent was that
aibliuti •·Bhushan betorc; he could be proceeded against sanction of the State
Chakravarty
Government under s. 197, Cr. P.C. ought to have been
Mud,;;;;;,
1. obtained.
This contention was upheld by the High Court.
Ou 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 its judgment
cannot stand.
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 lvok beyond the form in which the allegations have
been made and is incompetent to ascertain for itself their
1mbstance.
Here the substantial allegation
is that
the
1 respondent questioned the appellant when he was produced
at his office in Lalbazar, asked him to restore Rs. 5,000
to Mauoharlal 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 a!!
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 tp have acted otherwise than in his capacity
as a public servant.
For this reason the sanction of the
appropriate authority for the respondent's prosecution was
necessary under s. 197, Cr.P.C.
-
6 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
279
Mr· Ghose, however, . contends
that the
appellant's
1964
detention in the respondent's office was illegal and that, s. c. San11i•i
therefore, the respondent could not be said to have been in Bibhuti v.8huilwn
a position to exercise any lawful authority with respect to
Chakravor11
him. It is difficult to appreciate how the appellant's detenMudholkar
I.
tion 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 Manoharlal's 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 appellant's 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
warran!.
Such being the position the High Court was justified in
q,ushing the process. Accordingly we dismiss this appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
0. S. RAMASWAMY & ORS. ·
v . ..
INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, MYSORE
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO, K. c. DAS
GUPTA, J. C. SHAH AND N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR JJ.)
Stlltt Police Strvict-Sub-lnspector1 included in tligibility list of Cir1.:le
Jruptctor.s-RtorganUation of_ Statt1-Appointment tu Circle Iruptctor1 in new State-Rever1ion on return
of 1enior o{fictr._,f
rtduction in ra11k-My1ort Stniority Rult•, 19S1, r. 2(c)-
H1derabad District Polict Mcnual, u. 399, 403, 486.
1964
larumry., 21