The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a reasonable connection between the act and the official duty for the application of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the limitations of protection under Section 197 for acts of forgery and criminal conspiracy.

ORDER :

Bibek Chaudhuri, J.

1. This is an application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code filed by one Shri Pushparaju praying for quashing of the FIR No. 463 of 2014 dated 21.10.2014 under Sections 120B/167/409/464/465/471 of the Indian Penal Code and corresponding charge sheet No. 219 of 2018 dated 12.08.2018 and connected GR Case No. 1554 of 2014 pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Port Blair.

2. The petitioner is the Executive Engineer under the Andaman Public Works Department (APWD) presently under suspension.

3. One K. Amose, Head Draughtsman under the Road construction Division, APWD lodged a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 16 October, 2014 against the petitioner, and three other high officials of APWD before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Port Blair alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner along with the other accused persons committed criminal conspiracy and uploaded 4 numbers construction works fraudulently using unique ID numbers of Port Blair Municipal Council, Andaman and Nicobar Police Department and other fictitious unique ID numbers. It is also alleged that the accused persons along with Superintendent Engineer have created forged and false documents and used them as genuine for further process of uploading the four different tender notices in wrong ID numbers to conceal them from website of the APWD in order to deprive the innocent contractors from taking part in the tender process and to issue the work order to the men of their choice. The complainant has also made out a specific case of illegal disbursement of money to some persons by the accused.

4. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate forwarded the said written complaint to the Station House Officer, Police Station CCS directing him to treat the same as FIR and start investigation against the petitioner. On the basis of the said order, police registered a case being No. 463 of 2014 dated 21.10.2014 against the accused persons including the petitioner under Sections 120B/167/409/464/465/471 of the Indian Penal Code. On completion of the investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner and other three accused persons.

5. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took contingence of the offence against the accused persons on the basis of the charge sheet filed by police against them.

6. Main grievance of the petitioner is that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had acted illegally with material irregularity by taking cognizance of offence against the accused persons without due sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

7. It is contended by Mr. G.B. Kumar that the learned Magistrate, while exercising his power under Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot act in a mechanical or casual manner and go on with the complaint after getting the report. He further submits that prior to exercising jurisdiction under Section 156(3), the Magistrate is required to apply his mind and he cannot refer the matter under Section 156(3) against a public servant without a valid sanction order. The application of mind of the Magistrate should be reflected in the order. The mere statement that he has gone through the complaint, documents and heard the complainant will not be sufficient.

8. It is further submitted by Mr. Binnu Kumar, learned advocate for the petitioner that so far as the public servants are concerned, the cognizance of any offence by any Court is barred by Section 197 of the Code unless sanction is obtained from the appropriate authority, if the offence alleged to have been committed, was in charge of the official duty. The Section not only specifies the persons to whom the protection is afforded but it also specifies the conditions and the circumstances in which it shall be available and the effect in law, if the conditions are not satisfied. The mandatory character of the protection afforded to a public serva