Sanction under Section 197 Cr. P.C. is required for prosecuting a public servant for acts allegedly committed in the course of his official duties.

P.K.Deb, J.

1. This petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. has been filed for quashing the whole criminal prosecution in Complaint Case No. 391/90 now pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya, together with the order dt. 30.4.1993 by which cognizance has been taken under Sections 500/504/506 I.P.C. and that notices were issued to the petitioner.

2. The chequered history of the case is that opposite party No.2 filed the complaint petition against the petitioner stating therein that on 20.10.1989 at about 11 A.M. the petitioner accosted the complainant on a general passage just near the office of the S.D.O. Sadar, Gaya, and abused the complainant in filthy languages and that the accused has also threatened the complainant giving ghasty and terrifying warning about dire consequences if the complainant did not withdraw the M.J.C. 435/89 pending before the High Court. It has been further alleged in the complaint petition that the petitioner had abused and cursed the complainant with unparliamentary words and with a motive and genuine intention of lowering the image and prestige of the complainant in the estimation of the public.

3. The complainant was examined on S.A. on 5.7.1990 and after examining of some witnesses as contemplated under Section 202 of the Cr. P.C, ultimately, cognizance was taken under the said sections of I.P.C. vide order dt. 30.4.1993. It may be mentioned here that the complainant was allowed to collect quarry and mining in a hill near Gaya as per the order of the District Magistrate. But when the Forest Conservation Act & Rules came in existence, the allegation is that the petitioner has obstructed the complainant in his mining work. The complainant then moved before the High Court in a writ petition and there was an order in the writ petition staying the orders passed by the Government creating obstruction in the quarrying work of the complainant and there was also some restraint order against the complainant. It is the allegation that restraint order was violated by the petitioner and as such contempt petition was filed by the complainant before this court.

4. It is submitted that after a merathon hearing on the contempt matter the same was dropped ultimately, but, while that contempt matter was pending then the present criminal case has been filed only as a pressurising tactics.

5. Two points have been urged against the cognizance being taken in the case. The first contention of the learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the petitioner is that the cognizance taken is barred by limitation as contemplated under Section 468 of the Cr. P.C. The second contention is that the petitioner being a public servant and when the allegation is that the offence was committed at the office of the petitioner himself then the petitioner cannot be prosecuted without a proper sanction of the Government as contemplated under Section 197 of the Cr. P.C.

6. On the first point it has been submitted from the side of the O.P. No. 2 by relying on a full Bench decision of this court as reported in A.i.R. 1980 Patna p.127 (Jailok Thakur & ors. vs. State of Bihar) to the effect that although the issuance of summons were by the order dt. 30.4.1993 but actually the cognizance of the offence was taken long back on 5.7.1990 when the preliminary statement of the complainant was recorded and it was decided to hold further enquiry as contemplated under Section 202 Cr. P.C.

7. In the full Bench decision it has been categorically differentiated between the cognizance of offence and that of issuance of summons to the accused persons. It goes without saying that cognizance is taken of the offence alone and not of the offenders. After cognizance being taken of the offence enquiry was held under Section 202 Cr. P.C. and then it was decided that processes should be issued against the accused persons and hence the order of issuance of summons had been passed on 30.4.93. The offence has been alleged on 20.10.1989 and cogn