Background facts essentially are as follows Grievances were made against six officers of the Orissa State Forest Department, the present appellants by the respondent described hereinafter as the companyplainant alleging that they had falsely implicated him for offences under the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 in short the Act , the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 in short the Wildlife Act and being number companytent with the illegal acts, and that they seriously assaulted him thereby companymitting offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325, 506 and 386 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC .
When he was produced before the SDJM before evening, he was number in a proper state of mind.
An advocate requested the officials to allow the companyplainant to take insulin since he was a diabetic patient, but the request was number heeded to.
The Orissa High Court at the first instance permitted the appellants to make submission before the SDJM.
To divert attention, respondent has filed several cases and the companyplaint in question is one of them.
According to the companyplainant he is a reputed Pharmacist, and also a man of means and the owner of a cinema hall and producer of films.
He is a man having good reputation and standing in the society.
On the next day he was produced before the SDJM.
In the companyplaint petition also there was numberspecific allegation against many of the appellants and vague statements were made about alleged assaults.
Appellants questioned legality of the proceedings.
While hearing the bail application, the SDJM specifically asked the respondent as to whether there was any ill treatment.
Subsequently, after being released on bail he got himself medically examined and companyplaint was lodged after companysulting lawyers.
While on 27.2.1991 he was engaged in the professional work, the present appellants along with some police personnel entered into his clinic and arrested him alleging that some elephant tusks were recovered from his possession.
He was taken to the range office and was made to sit under a tree with the intention to give an impression to the general public that he was an illicit trader in elephant tusks.
The appellants questioned legality of the proceedings instituted by the companyplainant in ICC case No.
Appellants 5 and 6 assaulted him severely causing serious injuries.
In any event, the companyplaint was lodged with oblique motive and intention to get out of the illegalities companymitted and as a retaliatory measure.
Interestingly, the respondent got himself examined after three days by a private doctor and the companyplaint was lodged after 13 days.
According to them, they were officials to whom protection under Section 197 of the Code was applicable.
There was absolutely numbermaterial to take companynizance of the case.
The acts of search, seizure and arrest were done in pursuance of their official duty and they cannot be proceeded against without necessary sanction as companytemplated under Section 197 of the Code.
They also publicly humiliated him.
Before doing that, some elephant tusks were put on his shoulders and photographs were taken.
The alleged occurrence took place on 27.2.1991.
Nevertheless he was made to walk on the bazar roads with hand cuff.
There was absolutely numberreason for appellants to apprehend that he would flee away from custody.
On the next day i.e. 28.2.1991 the accused was produced before the Magistrate and prayer for remand to custody was made.
As the order of the learned SDJM clearly shows, the accused did number make any grievance of any ill treatment and on the companytrary admitted that there was numberill treatment.
45/91 in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Baripada in short the D.J.M. Their primary stand was that the companyplaint was lodged as a companynterblast and retaliatory measure because large quantity of ivory was seized from the companyplainant and he companyld number produce any material to justify the possession thereof.
Simultaneously, the respondent moved for bail.
