IMPORTANT POINT
The ultimate justification for the protection conferred by Section 197 is the public interest in seeing that official acts do not lead to needless or vexatious prosecution.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court dismissing the petition filed by the appellant in terms of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the ‘Code’). The appellant in the said petition had prayed for quashing the order dated 2.12.1993 taking cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 465, 466, 468, 469 and 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’) in Begusarai Town P.S. Case No.63 of 1993.

2. Background facts as projected by the appellant are essentially as follows :

On 29.8.1992 an application by respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘complainant’) was filed for cancellation of Form 19 filed relating to the license of M/s Arun Medical Hall. On the said date, appellant sent a report for cancellation of the application form for license. On the same date, as per the directions of District Magistrate, appellant conducted raid at the medical shop of respondent No.2 around 5.15 p.m. in the presence of two Executive Magistrates and certain medicines were seized. On 8.9.1992 appellant filed FIR (P.S. Case No.258/92) and a case was registered against respondent No.2 for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 IPC and Sections 27(b)(ii) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (in short ‘Drugs Act’). On 15.9.1992 respondent No.2 filed an application for bail. Significantly there was no averment in the bail petition that the appellant demanded bribe or made any interpolation of records. On 10.10.1992 respondent No.2 moved the Civil Surgeon for release of the seized medicines. Here again there was no allegation of demand of bribe and interpolation. On 7.11.1992 appellant informed the authorities about the threats received from respondent No.2 and others. On 16.11.1992 respondent No.2 moved the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for release of seized medicines. Here again, there was no allegation of demand of bribe or interpolation of records. On 16.12.1992 appellant informed the police officials about the threat received from respondent No.2 and others and requested to protect his life. On 4.2.1993 a complaint was made by respondent No.2 alleging that appellant had committed offences punishable under Sections 161, 167, 465, 466, 469 and 471 IPC and on the basis of the complaint, FIR was registered.

3. According to the appellant, there was no explanation offered as to why there was delay in filing the complaint and there was no grievance that the police officials had refused to register any FIR. On 31.7.1993 an order purported to have been passed under Section 196 of the Code was passed by District Magistrate according sanction for prosecution of the appellant. On 4.8.1993 charge sheet was filed against the appellant for alleged commission of offences under Sections 465, 466, 469 and 471 IPC. Here again, there was no allegation of alleged commission of offence relating to demand of bribe which is punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short ‘PC Act’). On 2.12.1993 cognizance was taken.

4. It is submitted that the District Magistrate had no authority to grant sanction purportedly under Section 196 of the Code. Further in the petition before the High Court it was categorically stated as follows :

“15. That it is stated that the Incharge of the Peon Book or the Issue Register is not the petitioner. It is in the hands of the clerk of the office and the concerned clerk was the appointee of Dr. A.A. Mallick whose services has been terminated as his appointment itself was illegal and during his termination process from service, he connived with the informant and have done all the mischief’s against the petitioner.”

5. As noted above, a petition under Section 482 was filed, which was rejected by the High Court primarily on the ground that no sanction was required. No other question was decided. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant tha