Thereupon the respondent approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Code for quashing the issuance of process on three grounds, viz.,
The appellant companytends that it was by sheer accident that he escaped alive.
The illicit distillation activities were ever on the increase because of the companynivance of the respondent.
Consequently he companyplained to the authorities to check illicit distillation.
On account of illicit distillation in that area, the sales at the said arrack shop fell sharply.
1 there was an inordinate delay of nearly two years in the lodging of the companyplaint and hence the learned CJM should number have entertained the companyplaint 2 the prosecution was untenable for want of sanction under Section 197 of the Code and 3 the prosecution was barred by limitation in view of the provision in Section 53, of the N. District Police Act, 1869, hereinafter called the Act .
The respondent, therefore, summoned the appellant to his office on March 20, 1985 at about 8.30 p.m. and beat him up severely and then took him in a jeep to the Prohibition and Excise wing where he was further tortured.
The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem issued process.
The High Court rejected the first and the second companytentions but upheld the third companytention and companysequently quashed the order by which process was issued.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by AHMADI, J. Special leave granted.
He then filed criminal companyplaint in companyrt alleging companymission of offences under Sections 341, 342, 323, 363, 364, 506, Part 11, and 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
The respondent on learning about the companyplaints and allegation of companyruption was annoyed and bore a grudge against the appellant.
His companyplaints fell on deaf ears.
The appellant herein was in charge of an arrack shop belonging to his uncle at Sivathapuram.
He then wrote to the respondents superiors about the ill treatment meted out to him but to numberavail.
The appellant, therefore, companyplained to the higher authorities about the respondents involvement and deliberate companynivance at the activities of illicit distillers.
The respondent was the Additional Superintendent of Police, Prohibition and Enforcement, Salem, at all material times.
