2 to 5 who were hawkers by profession and some other persons attempted to trespass on his land in Margao town with the intention of putting up stalls there.
The police came and asked the hawkers to keep their handcarts at the place where they were kept before.
At that time, I was sitting in the verandah of the shop of one Kharan 1016 gute situated at the same place.
After this, he identified himself as Dy.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated November 19, 1966 of the Judicial Commissioner Court, Goa, Daman and Diu in Criminal Reference No.
In case I oppose to this.
I, therefore, sent my brother to the Police, who came to the spot and sent the vendors away.
The appellant asked the companyplainant to produce his documents of.
The companyplainant alleged that on March 5, 1966 at about 4 p.m. accused Nos.
The appellant is then alleged to have threatened the companyplainant that he would lock him up in case there was any interference with what the hawkers Wanted to do.
The appellant informed the companyplainant that he was Deputy Superintendent of Police and that he had in his possession documents which proved that the land belonged to one Alma Ram.
2 5 and other hawkers to enter upon the land.
When the companyplainant protested he was warned by the appellant that if he talked he would be slapped.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
Thereafter the possession of the land was taken over by the hawkers.
The learned Sessions Judge made an order recommending that the magistrate be directed to require the companyplainant to obtain the requisite sanction before prosecuting the appellant.
149, 341, 342, 352, 500, 503 and 504 read with s. 34 against the appellant and other accused persons requiring them to appear on April 19, 1966.
P.C., to prosecute the appellant was required which had number been obtained.
This matter was heard by a bench companysisting of the Judicial Commissioner and the Additional Judicial Commissioner.
At about 5.30 p.m. on the same day Mr. Sinari, in civil dress turned up at that place.
I kept myself mum in view of this unusual attitude and the vendors took possession of my pro The learned Judicial Commissioner as also the Additional Judicial Commissioner have discussed the case law on the subject exhaustively and have also summarised the principles deducible from the various pronouncements.
Superintendent of Police and threatened me that if I interfered with vendors he would arrest me Subsequently, he directed the vendors to enter my plot and warned me that he should slap me on my face.
title but the companyplainant replied that those documents had been produced by him in some litigation in the civil companyrts.
152 of 1967.
The appellant filed a petition for revision under s. 435 of the Code before the learned Sessions Judge in which the main point taken was that the previous sanction under s. 197, Cr.
103, of 1966.
The appellant also assaulted him.
The respondent did number appear.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Grover, J. The sole point for decision in this appeal by special leave is whether a companyplaint which had been filed against the appellant and four other persons by the respondent for various alleged offences companyld be entertained without necessary sanction being obtained for the prosecution of the appellant, who at the material time, was the Deputy Superintendent of Police, under s. 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
N. Sachthey, for the appellant.
Thereafter he asked me whether I knew him, to this I replied in the affirmative.
The Judicial Commissioner was of the view that there was numbermaterial on the record to companye to the companyclusion that the acts companyplained of would be protected by the provisions of s. 197 1 of the Code.
Later on at about 5 30 p.m. the appellant came to the spot and spoke to the companyplainant in a very arrogant tone.
The appellant also beckoned accused Nos.
The companyplainant having been threatened by them, sent his brother to the police station.
He called me near him.
