Kerala High Court
Suhyb P.J vs State Of Kerala on 23 June, 2025
Author: V.G.Arun
Bench: V.G.Arun
Crl.M.C.No.65/25 & con.cases
1
2025:KER:49758
"CR"
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 65 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CMP NO.2869 OF
2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, DEVIKULAM
PETITIONER:
SUHYB P.J,
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O.JAMALUDHEEN, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE,
PERUPPANACHI POST, THENGANA, CHANGANASSERY,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686536
BY ADV SRI.BABU S. NAIR
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031
2 K.P. SUNIL,
S/O.PUSHPANGATHAN,KALARIKKAL HOUSE, KARIMUTTI,
MARAYOOR, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685620
BY ADV SMT.SREELAKSHMI SABU
Crl.M.C.No.65/25 & con.cases
2
2025:KER:49758
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. NAGARAJ NARAYANAN, SPL. PP FOR FOREST.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
28.05.2025, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.73/2025, 74/2025 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 23.06.2025 PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.65/25 & con.cases
3
2025:KER:49758
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 73 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.613 OF 2024
OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, DEVIKULAM
PETITIONERS:
1 SUHYB P.J,
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O.JAMALUDHEEN, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE,
PERUPPANACHI POST, THENGANA, CHANGANASSERY,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686536
2 ABJU K. ARUN,
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O.K. KARUNAKARAN, AAKKAKATTIL HOUSE, NEENDOOR
P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686601
BY ADV SRI.BABU S. NAIR
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031
2 RAJESH KUMAR J,
S/O.JAYARAJ, PULIKKARAVAYAL HOUSE, MARAYOOR,
IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685620
Crl.M.C.No.65/25 & con.cases
4
2025:KER:49758
BY ADV SMT.SREELAKSHMI SABU
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
28.05.2025, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.65/2025 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 23.06.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.65/25 & con.cases
5
2025:KER:49758
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 74 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.612 OF 2024
OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, DEVIKULAM
PETITIONERS:
1 SUHYB P.J,
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O.JAMALUDHEEN, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE,
PERUPPANACHI POST, THENGANA, CHANGANASSERY,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686536
2 ABJU K. ARUN,
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O.K. KARUNAKARAN, AAKKAKATTIL HOUSE, NEENDOOR
P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686601
BY ADV SRI.BABU S. NAIR
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031
Crl.M.C.No.65/25 & con.cases
6
2025:KER:49758
2 SARATH @ SIVA,
S/O.AYYAPPAN,LAKSHMI HOUSE, KOODAVAYAL,'MARAYOOR,
IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685620
BY ADV SMT.SREELAKSHMI SABU
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
28.05.2025,, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.65/2025 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 23.06.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.65/25 & con.cases
7
2025:KER:49758
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 85 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.614 OF 2024
OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, DEVIKULAM
PETITIONERS:
1 SUHYB P.J,
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O.JAMALUDHEEN, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE,
PERUPPANACHI POST, THENGANA, CHANGANASSERY,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686536
2 ABJU K. ARUN,
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O.K. KARUNAKARAN, AAKKAKATTIL HOUSE, NEENDOOR
P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686601
BY ADV SRI.BABU S. NAIR
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031
Crl.M.C.No.65/25 & con.cases
8
2025:KER:49758
2 MANOJ KUMAR,
AGED 22 YEARS
S/O.CHRISTOPHER,NACHIVAYAL, MICHEALGIRI P.O.,
MARAYOOR, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685620
BY ADV SMT.SREELAKSHMI SABU
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
28.05.2025,, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.65/2025 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 23.06.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.65/25 & con.cases
9
2025:KER:49758
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 86 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CMP NO.2814 OF
2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, DEVIKULAM
PETITIONERS:
1 SUHYB P.J.
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O.JAMALUDHEEN, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE,
PERUPPANACHI POST, THENGANA, CHANGANASSERY,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686536
2 ABJU K. ARUN,
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O.K. KARUNAKARAN, AAKKAKATTIL HOUSE, NEENDOOR
P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686601
BY ADV SRI.BABU S. NAIR
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031
Crl.M.C.No.65/25 & con.cases
10
2025:KER:49758
2 LIJU,
S/O.MANI, M.S. NIVAS,
THEKKUMBAGOM,CHIRAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 695304
BY ADV SMT.SREELAKSHMI SABU
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
28.05.2025,, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.65/2025 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 23.06.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.65/25 & con.cases
11
2025:KER:49758
"CR"
V.G.ARUN, J
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Crl.M.C.Nos.65,73,74,85 and 86 of 2025
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2025
ORDER
Petitioners are forest officials, the 1st petitioner being the
Divisional Forest Officer, Marayoor Forest Division and the 2 nd
petitioner, the Range Forest Officer. Three crimes were
registered at the Marayoor Forest Range as O.R.Nos.1, 2 and 3
of 2024 for offences under Sections 27(1)(d), 27(1)(e)(ii), 27(1)
(e)(iii) and 27(1)(e)(iv) read with Sections 47C and 47G of the
Kerala Forest Act against certain persons including the 2 nd
respondents herein. As the facts in Crl.M.C.Nos.65 and 86 of
2025 are slightly different from those in Crl.M.C.Nos.73, 74 and
85 of 2025, the two sets of cases are dealt with separately.
Crl.M.C.Nos.73, 74 and 85 of 2025
Pursuant to the registration of O.R.Nos.1,2 and 3 of 2024,
Vinod, the 5th accused in O.R.No.1 of 2025, was arrested and his
Crl.M.C.No.65/25 & con.cases
12
2025:KER:49758
confession statement recorded on 14.11.2024. During his
confession, Vinod revealed the names of Sarath @ Siva,
Soorya, Suresh and Liju @ Jithu as participants in the crime.
Thereafter, the 1st accused Sarath was taken into custody on
18.11.2024. In the confession statement of Sarath recorded on
19.11.2024, he mentioned about the involvement of others
named Manoj, Rajesh and Jaleel. Thereupon, Manoj, Rajesh and
Jaleel were arrested on 21.11.2024. After recording their
arrest the accused were produced before the Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Devikulam and remanded to judicial
custody. While so, the petitioners sought the custody of Sarath,
Manoj and Rajesh for the purpose of interrogation. The learned
Magistrate allowed the prayer and granted custody from
04.12.2024 to 09.12.2024. On completion of the custody period
the accused were produced before the Magistrate on
09.12.2024. Later in the day, after meeting their lawyer, the
accused complained to the Magistrate that they were subjected
to extreme harassment and physical torture by the petitioners.
Crl.M.C.No.65/25 & con.cases
13
2025:KER:49758
The Magistrate thereupon directed the accused to be taken for
medical examination. After returning from the hospital, Sarath,
Manoj and Rajesh submitted written complaints to the
Magistrate. The Magistrate accepted the complaints and
recorded the sworn statements of the accused on 21.12.2024.
Based on the complaints and the sworn statements, the
Magistrate took cognisance of the offences punishable under
Sections 115(2), 118(1), 120(1), 127(2), 194 and 351(1) read
with Section 3(5) of the BNS and issued summons to the
petitioners. The cases were thereupon numbered as
C.C.Nos.613, 612 and 614 of 2024 on the files of the Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Devikulam.
Crl.M.C.Nos.65 and 86 of 2025
The 2nd respondent in Crl.M.C.No.65 of 2025 is the 4 th
accused in O.R.No.1 of 2024 and was arrested on 14.11.2024.
While continuing in judicial custody, the 2 nd respondent
submitted a complaint alleging physical torture while he was in
the custody of the petitioners. Thereupon, the Magistrate
Crl.M.C.No.65/25 & con.cases
14
2025:KER:49758
issued notice under Section 223(1) of BNSS to the petitioners.
2. The 2nd respondent in Crl.M.C.No.86 of 2025 is the 5 th
accused in O.R.No.3 of 2024. He was arrested on 21.11.2024
and at the request of the petitioners, the 2 nd respondent was
given to their custody from 23.11.2024 to 26.11.2024.
Subsequently, the 2nd respondent submitted Annexure B
complaint to the Magistrate on 17.12.2024, and the Magistrate
issued notices to the petitioners under Section 223(1) of BNSS.
3. Heard Advs.Babu S. Nair for the petitioners, Thomas J
Anakallungal and Sreelakshmi Sabu for the accused.
Adv.Nagaraj Narayanan, the Special Government Pleader
(Forest) appeared for the State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners made the following
submissions with respect to Crl.M.C.Nos.73, 74 and 85 of 2025;
While the accused were in the custody of the petitioners,
their medical examination was conducted every 48 hours.
Neither was any complaint regarding torture made to the
Doctor, nor did the Doctor notice any injuries on the accused.
Crl.M.C.No.65/25 & con.cases
15
2025:KER:49758
Even on 09.12.2024, when they were produced before the
Magistrate, the accused did not complain about torture. The
complaint was made only after the accused interacted with
their counsel. It was the counsel who entered the Magistrate’s
chamber to make the complaint. Surprisingly, the counsel was
allowed to take the accused to the hospital for medical
examination in his own vehicle. The identically worded
complaints alleging torture, were submitted thereafter. By
recording the sworn statements of the complainants and withou
issuing notice to the petitioners, taking cognisance the
Magistrate acted in violation of the procedure prescribed in
Section 223 of the BNSS. The personal bias of the Magistrate
is evident from the issuance of notices proposing to initiate
contempt proceedings against the petitioners based on certain
media reports regarding the illegal procedure adopted by the
Magistrate. The petitioners have approached the High Court on
its administrative side pointing out these illegalities. The bias
and prejudice of the Magistrate being apparent, interest of
Crl.M.C.No.65/25 & con.cases
16
2025:KER:49758
justice demands that the proceedings be transferred to some
other court.
5. The following contentions were advanced with respect
to Crl.M.C.Nos.65 and 86 of 2025;
After accepting the complaint filed by the 2 nd respondents,
the Magistrate issued notice under Section 223(1) of BNSS to
the petitioners, without following the procedure prescribed in
Section 223(2). If the complaint is against a public servant, for
any offence alleged to have been committed in the course of the
discharge of his official functions or duties, opportunity should
be given to the public servant to make assertions as to the
situation that led to the alleged incident and a report
containing the facts and circumstances of the incident obtained
from an officer superior to such public servant. The accused
were allegedly tortured during interrogation, which is an
integral. Being so, the Magistrate was bound to comply with the
procedure under Section 223(2) before issuing notice to the
petitoners. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Supreme
Crl.M.C.No.65/25 & con.cases
17
2025:KER:49758
Court in Rizwan Ahmed Javed Shaikh and Others v.
Jammal Patel and Others [(2001) 5 SCC 7] and Sankaran
Moitra v. Sadhna Das and Another [(2006) 4 SCC 584] to
contend that any act constituting an offence directly and
reasonably connected with the official duty of the public
servant will fall within the ambit of Section 223(2) of BNSS.
6. Responding to the above contentions, learned counsel
for the 2nd respondents put forth the following arguments;
Cognisance was taken based on the sworn statement of
the complainant as well as the medical evidence, which clearly
indicated that the accused were tortured by the petitioners.
The torturing of accused persons under the guise of
interrogation has nothing to do with the discharge of official
duties. Therefore, Magistrate was not bound to follow the
procedure under Section 223(2) of BNSS. In support of the
argument, reliance is placed on the decisions of the Supreme
Court in Om Prakash Yadav v. Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay
[2024 KHC 6707] and of the High Court in Alavi C v. State of
Crl.M.C.No.65/25 & con.cases
18
2025:KER:49758
Kerala [2024 KHC 7210]. Alternatively, it is contended that the
2nd petitioner, being a Range Officer, whose appointing
authority is not the Government, is not entitled for the
protection under Section 223(2) of BNSS. It is submitted that,
the unwarranted and unsubstantiated allegations are raised
against the Magistrate only to demoralise the judicial officer
and get the case transferred to some other court.
7. Learned Special Government Pleader submitted that
the jurisdiction of the JFCM Court, Devikulam spreads over a
vast area and the Forest Department is facing issues due to the
inimical stand taken by the Magistrate against its officers. It is
argued that interrogation is part of official duty and cognisance
could have been taken only after following the procedure
prescribed in Section 223(2). Support for the argument is
sought to be drawn from the decisions of the Apex Court in P.
Arulswami v. State of Madras [AIR 1967 SC 776] and
Rakesh Kumar Mishra v. State of Bihar and Others [(2006
1 SCC 557].
Crl.M.C.No.65/25 & con.cases
19
2025:KER:49758
8. The first contention being regarding the failure of the
Magistrate to follow the procedure prescribed in Section 223 of
the BNSS, the said provision is extracted hereunder for easy
reference
“223. Examination of complainant.
(1) A Magistrate having jurisdiction while taking cognizance
of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the
complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the
substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing
and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses,
and also by the Magistrate:
Provided that no cognizance of an offence shall be taken by
the Magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of
being heard:
Provided further that when the complaint is made in
writing, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant
and the witnesses-
(a) if a public servant acting or purporting to act in the
discharge of his official duties or a Court has made the
complaint; or
(b) if the Magistrate makes over the case for inquiry or trial
to another Magistrate under Section 212:
Provided also that if the Magistrate makes over the case to
another Magistrate under Section 212 after examining the
Crl.M.C.No.65/25 & con.cases
202025:KER:49758
complainant and the witnesses, the latter Magistrate need
not re-examine them.
(2) A Magistrate shall not take cognizance on a complaint
against a public servant for any offence alleged to have
been committed in course of the discharge of his official
functions or duties unless-
(a) such public servant is given an opportunity to make
assertions as to the situation that led to the incident so
alleged; and
(b) a report containing facts and circumstances of the
incident from the officer superior to such public servant is
received.”
(underline supplied)
9. The difference between the procedure prescribed in
Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section
223(1) was noticed by this Court in Suby Antony v. Susha
[2025 (1) KHC 596], the relevant portion of which is extracted
below;
“7. Indeed, a radical change in procedure is brought about by the
proviso to S.223(1) of BNSS. Pertinently, in spite of the proviso to
S.223(1) making it mandatory to provide opportunity of hearing to
the accused before taking cognisance, S.226 does not reckon the
Crl.M.C.No.65/25 & con.cases
212025:KER:49758
accused’s objection at the stage of taking cognisance as a relevant
factor for dismissing the complaint. Being guided by the precedents
on S.200 and S.202 of the Code and the plain language of the
proviso to S.223(1) of the BNSS, this Court is of the opinion that,
after the complaint is filed, the Magistrate should first examine the
complainant and witnesses on oath and thereafter, if the Magistrate
proceeds to take cognisance of the offence/s, opportunity of hearing
should be afforded to the accused. ”
10. In so far as cognisance was taken by the Magistrate in
C.C.Nos. 612, 613 and 614 of 2024, without following the
prescribed procedure, Crl.M.C. Nos. 73, 74 and 85 are liable to
be allowed.
11. The next contention is regarding the failure to follow
the procedure prescribed in sub-section (2) to Section 223 of
BNSS. Here, it is pertinent to note that Section 202 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure did not contain a provision
corresponding to Section 223(2) of BNSS. The only provision
in the Code providing such protection to public servants was
Section 197(1) and the corresponding Section in the BNSS is
Section 218(1), extracted below;
Crl.M.C.No.65/25 & con.cases
22
2025:KER:49758
“218. Prosecution of Judges and public servants.
(1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a
public servant not removable from his officer save by or with the
sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to
have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in
the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of
such offence except with the previous sanction save as otherwise
provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 (1 of 2014)–
(a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be,
was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in
connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government;
(b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be,
was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in
connection with the affairs of a State of the State Government:
(underline supplied)
12. On careful scrutiny of Sections 218(1) and 223(2) it
can be seen that the protection under Section 218 is confined
to the offences alleged to have been committed by a public
servant while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of
official duty. On the other hand, sub-section (2) of Section 223
covers offences alleged to have been committed by a public
Crl.M.C.No.65/25 & con.cases
232025:KER:49758
servant in course of the discharge of the official functions or
duties. Interpreting the words ‘any offence alleged to have been
committed by the public servant while acting or purporting to
act in the discharge of his official duty, the Apex Court in
B.Saha and Others v M.S. Kochar [AIR 1979 SC 1841] has
observed that if those words are construed narrowly, the
provision will be rendered sterile, for, it is not part of an official
duty to commit an offence and in the wider sense the words will
take under their umbrella every act constituting an offence,
committed in the course of the same transaction in which the
official duty is performed or purports to be performed.
Therefore, the right approach lies between the two extremes.
In Rizwan Ahmed Javed Shaikh (supra), the Supreme Court
laid down the test for the applicability of Section 197 as under;
“15. The real test to be applied to attract the applicability of
Section 197(3) is whether the act which is done by a public officer
and is alleged to constitute an offence was done by the public officer
whilst acting in his official capacity though what he did was neither his
duty nor his right to do as such public officer. The act complained of
may be in exercise of the duty or in the absence of such duty or in
Crl.M.C.No.65/25 & con.cases
242025:KER:49758
dereliction of the duty, if the act complained of is done while acting as
a public officer and in the course of the same transaction in which the
official duty was performed or purported to be performed, the public
officer would be protected.”
13. Later, in Sankaran Moitra (supra), after extensive
survey of precedents, the Supreme Court encapsulated its
conclusion as to the primary object of Section 197 in the
following words;
“67. From the aforesaid decisions, in my opinion, the law
appears to be well settled. The primary object of the legislature
behind Section 197 of the Code is to protect public officers who have
acted in discharge of their duties or purported to act in discharge of
such duties. But, it is equally well settled that the act said to have
been committed by a public officer must have reasonable connection
with the duty sought to be discharged by such public officer. If the
act complained of has no nexus, reasonable connection or relevance
to the official act or duty of such public servant and is otherwise
illegal, unlawful or in the nature of an offence, he cannot get shelter
under Section 197 of the Code. In other words, protection afforded
by the said section is qualified and conditional.”
14. True, that in Alavi C. (supra), this Court, in the
context of Section 197, has held that acts of physical torture
Crl.M.C.No.65/25 & con.cases
25
2025:KER:49758
and abuse cannot be said to have reasonable connection with
official duty. Here, it is pertinent to note that the wordings of
Section 223(2) of BNSS are much more expansive than Section
197(1) of the Code (Section 218(1) of BNSS). While Section
218(1) contemplates sanction of the Government if the public
servant is alleged to have committed any offence while acting
or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, Section
223(2) provides an opportunity to the public servant to make
his assertions with respect to any offence alleged to have been
committed in course of the discharge of his official functions or
duties. Undoubtedly, the words ‘any offence alleged to have
been committed in course of the discharge of his official
functions or duties’ would take in an excessive act committed
by such person in the course of the discharge of his official
functions or duties.
15. Another vital difference between the provisions is
that, in Section 218(1) only the word duty is used, whereas in
Section 223(2), both duty and function are mentioned. While
Crl.M.C.No.65/25 & con.cases
26
2025:KER:49758
the expression ‘public duty’ refers to an obligation or
responsibility imposed on a public official, the term public
function refers to the activity, role or service performed by a
public official or a person acting on behalf of the Government.
Thus, it is apparent that the legislature has consciously used
the expansive expression in Section 223(2) so as to provide
additional layer of protection to public servants from
prosecution based on false and frivolous complaints.
Therefore, when dealing with complaints alleging commission
of offence by a public servant in course of the discharge of his
official function or duty, the Magistrate is bound to follow the
procedure prescribed in Section 223(2) of BNSS.
16. While on the subject it may also be profitable to note
that while sanctioning under Section 218(1) of BNSS is
confined to persons employed by the Central and State
Governments, no such restriction is stipulated in Section
223(2), the expression used therein being public servant
simplicitor. Therefore, all persons falling within the definition
Crl.M.C.No.65/25 & con.cases
27
2025:KER:49758
of ‘public servant’ under Section 2(28) of the BNS are covered
by the protective umbrella of Section 223(2) of BNSS. Being
so, the contention of the 2 nd respondent that the 2 nd petitioner is
not appointed by the State Government and therefore do no fall
within the ambit of Section 223(2) can only be rejected.
17. The above discussion leads to the conclusion that in
CMP Nos.2814 of 2024 and 2869 of 2024, the Magistrate
should afford opportunity to the petitioners to offer their
explanation regarding the alleged incident and call for a report
from their superior officer. The 1st petitioner being the
immediate superior of the 2nd petitioner, the Magistrate may
call for a report from an officer superior in rank to both the
petitioners.
In the result, Crl.M.C.Nos.73, 74 and 85 of 2025 are
allowed and the orders taking cognisance and further
proceedings in C.C.Nos.613, 612 and 614 are quashed. The
Magistrate is directed to commence fresh proceedings by
adhering to the procedure prescribed in Sections 223(1) and
223(2) of the BNSS.
Crl.M.C.No.65/25 & con.cases
28
2025:KER:49758
Crl.M.C.Nos.65 and 86 of 2025 are disposed of by
directing the Magistrate to continue the proceedings pursuant
to Annexures C and D notices in accordance with the procedure
prescribed in Section 223(2) of the BNSS.
sd/-
V.G.ARUN, JUDGE
sj
Crl.M.C.No.65/25 & con.cases
29
2025:KER:49758
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 73/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 1 IN
O.R.NO.1/2024 OF THE MARAYOOR FOREST
STATION DATED, 30-6-2024
Annexure A(1) A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 1 IN
O.R.NO.2/2024 OF THE NACHIVAYAL FOREST
STATION DATED, 20-9-2024
Annexure A(2) A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 1 IN
O.R.NO.3/2024 OF THE NACHIVAYAL FOREST
STATION DATED, 6-11-2024
Annexure B A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED, 10-12-2024
Annexure C A TRUE COPY OF THE SWORN STATEMENT OF
THE 2ND RESPONDENT RECORDED BY THE
LEARNED MAGISTRATE DATED, 21-12-2024
Annexure D A TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS ISSUED TO
THE 2ND PETITIONER IN
C.M.P.NO.2771/2024
Annexure E A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN
CRL.M.P.NO.2792/2024 OF THE J.F.C.M.,
DEVIKULAM DATED, 16-12-2024
Annexure F A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE
J.F.C.M., DEVIKULAM IN
C.M.P.NO.2825/2024 DATED, 18-12-2024
Annexure G A TRUE COPY OF THE CONFESSION STATEMENT
OF THE 8TH ACCUSED IN O.R.NO.3/2024 OF
THE MARAYOOR FOREST RANGE
Crl.M.C.No.65/25 & con.cases
30
2025:KER:49758
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 74/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 1 IN
O.R.NO.1/2024 OF THE MARAYOOR FOREST
STATION DATED, 30-6-2024
Annexure A(1) A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 1 IN
O.R.NO.2/2024 OF THE NACHIVAYAL FOREST
STATION DATED, 20-9-2024
Annexure A(2) A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 1 IN
O.R.NO.3/2024 OF THE NACHIVAYAL FOREST
STATION DATED, 6-11-2024
Annexure B A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED, 9-12-2024
BEFORE THE J.F.C.M., DEVIKULAM
Annexure C A TRUE COPY OF THE SWORN STATEMENT OF
THE 2ND RESPONDENT RECORDED BY THE
J.F.C.M., DEVIKULAM DATED, 21-12-2024
Annexure D A TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS ISSUED TO
THE 2ND PETITIONER IN
C.M.P.NO.2768/2024
Annexure E A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN
CRL.M.P.NO.2792/2024 OF THE J.F.C.M.,
DEVIKULAM DATED, 16-12-2024
Annexure F A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE
J.F.C.M., DEVIKULAM IN
C.M.P.NO.2825/2024 DATED, 18-12-2024
Annexure G A TRUE COPY OF THE CONFESSION STATEMENT
OF THE 8TH ACCUSED IN O.R.NO.3/2024 OF
THE MARAYOOR FOREST RANGE
Annexure H A TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE
ISSUED TO THE FIRST PETITIONER AND THE
PROCEEDINGS DATED, 31-1-2025 OF THE
J.F.C.M., DEVIKULAM
Annexure I A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED TO
ANNEXURE H NOTICE BY THE FIRST
PETITIONER DATED, 16-2-2025
Crl.M.C.No.65/25 & con.cases
31
2025:KER:49758
Annexure J A TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER OF
THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,
KOTTAYAM DATED, 3-4-2025
Annexure K TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY
THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE REGISTRAR
(VIGILANCE) OF THIS HON’BLE COURT
DATED, 2-4-2025
Crl.M.C.No.65/25 & con.cases
32
2025:KER:49758
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 85/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 1 IN
O.R.NO.1/2024 OF THE MARAYOOR FOREST
STATION DATED, 30-6-2024
Annexure A(1) A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 1 IN
O.R.NO.2/2024 OF THE NACHIVAYAL FOREST
STATION DATED, 20-9-2024
Annexure A(2) A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 1 IN
O.R.NO.3/2024 OF THE NACHIVAYAL FOREST
STATION DATED, 6-11-2024
Annexure B CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT
SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED,
10-12-2024 BEFORE THE J.F.C.M.,
DEVIKULAM
Annexure C A TRUE COPY OF THE SWORN STATEMENT OF
THE 2ND RESPONDENT RECORDED BY THE
LEARNED MAGISTRATE DATED, 21-12-2024
Annexure D A TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS ISSUED TO
THE FIRST PETITIONER IN
C.M.P.NO.2772/2024 DATED, 23-12-2024
Annexure E A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN
CRL.M.P.NO.2792/2024 OF THE J.F.C.M.,
DEVIKULAM DATED, 16-12-2024
Annexure F A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE
J.F.C.M., DEVIKULAM IN
C.M.P.NO.2825/2024 DATED, 18-12-2024
Annexure G A TRUE COPY OF THE CONFESSION STATEMENT
OF THE 8TH ACCUSED IN O.R.NO.3/2024 OF
THE MARAYOOR FOREST RANGE
Crl.M.C.No.65/25 & con.cases
33
2025:KER:49758
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 86/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 1 IN
O.R.NO.1/2024 OF THE MARAYOOR FOREST
STATION DATED, 30-6-2024
Annexure A(1) TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 1 IN
O.R.NO.2/2024 OF THE NACHIVAYAL FOREST
STATION DATED, 20-9-2024
Annexure A(2) TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 1 IN
O.R.NO.3/2024 OF THE NACHIVAYAL FOREST
STATION DATED, 6-11-2024
Annexure B TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE
J.F.C.M., DEVIKULAM DATED, 17-12-2024
Annexure C ATRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE
FIRST PETITIONER DATED, 18-12-2024 FROM
THE J.F.C.M. COURT, DEVIKULAM
Annexure D TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE
SECOND PETITIONER DATED, 18-12-2024
FROM THE J.F.C.M. COURT, DEVIKULAM
Annexure E TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN
CRL.M.P.NO.2792/2024 OF THE J.F.C.M.,
DEVIKULAM DATED, 16-12-2024
Annexure F TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE
J.F.C.M., DEVIKULAM IN
C.M.P.NO.2825/2024 DATED, 18-12-2024
Annexure G TRUE COPY OF THE CONFESSION STATEMENT
OF THE 8TH ACCUSED IN O.R.NO.3/2024 OF
THE MARAYOOR FOREST RANGE DATED, 18-12-
2024
Crl.M.C.No.65/25 & con.cases
34
2025:KER:49758
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 65/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 1 IN
O.R.NO.1/2024 OF THE MARAYOOR FOREST
STATION DATED, 30-6-2024
Annexure B A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE
J.F.C.M., DEVIKULAM DATED, 24-12-2024
Annexure C A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER DATED, 30-12-2024 UNDER
SECTION 223(I) PROVISO OF BNSS