The court emphasized that the question of sanction under Section 197 of the Code can be raised at any time after the cognizance and that the trial court should have recorded specific reasons for discharging the accused persons.

JUDGMENT

Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J. - The present revisional application has been preferred for setting aside the impugned order dated 29.8.2018 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hooghly in C.R. case no. 426 of 2014.

2. The gist of the allegation made in the petition of complaint is to the effect that the accused persons in collusion and in connivance with each other conjointly disturbed the peaceful possession of the land and property belonging to the petitioner situated at premises no. 627, Dharampur Halderbagan, Near Gangatala, P.O & P.S. Chinsurah, District-Hooghly in order to grab the land allotted to the father of the petitioner by the Refugee Relief and Rehabilitation Department. It is contended that on 5.3.2014 and 8.3.2014 at about 8 A.M., the accused persons wrongfully trespassed into the property of the complainant, broke the boundary wall on the eastern side, cut down the live trees, damaged fencing and broke the tiles by throwing brick bats. Again on 13.3.2014 at about 12 P.M., accused persons committed the same offence and looted away the household articles for which the complainant lodged a general diary being G.D.E no. 1650 dated 13.3.2014. Local police station refused to register the complaint for which a copy of complain was sent by registered post to the higher authority but since no steps were taken by the police authorities, the instant complaint was lodged under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hooghly at Chinsurah against the accused persons. Accused/opposite party No. 2 to 11 are public servant and rest opposite parties/accused are not public servant.

3. On receipt of the complaint, the ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate was pleased to take cognizance upon the offence and transferred the case record to the court of Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court, Hooghly for disposal.

4. On receipt of the case record, the transferee court examined the complainant/petitioner herein on solemn affirmation and issued process under Sections 148/427/379/448/342/504/506/120B/201/ 119 of the Indian Penal Code against opposite parties/accused persons. Subsequently, the accused namely, Susanta Mukherjee filed an application on 9.10.2015 for his discharge for want of sanction to prosecution under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The same prayer were also made by the accused namely, Gouri Kanto Mukherjee, Himangshu Chakraborty, Krishna Kanta Ghosh and Arpita Ghosh on 20.12.2015 and by another accused namely, Partha Sarathi Bhowmick on 22.3.2016. The petitioner herein filed an application before the trial court praying for time to obtain sanction to prosecution by enclosing relevant documents addressed to the various authorities. It is alleged further that learned court below, without applying his judicial mind to the facts and circumstances of the case, discharged all the accused persons including those who are not at all public servants vide impugned order dated 29.8.2018 with the observation that petitioner has not obtained sanction for prosecution and that the petitioner is reluctant to proceed with the case which is completely incorrect inasmuch as the petitioner on various dates, filed adjournment petitions on the ground of illness enclosing medical papers.

5. No one appears on behalf of the opposite parties.

6. The short question of law involved in the revisional application is whether the Ld. Magistrate was justified in discharging all the accused persons by the impugned order dated 29.8.2018 with the observation that the sanction for prosecution has not been obtained and that the petitioner is reluctant to proceed with the case.

7. For better understanding, the relevant portion of the impugned order may be quoted:

'In this case sanction has not been obtained from the Governor/Appropriate Authority before filing of this case and the accused/petitioners are the public servants. I also find that the complainant is reluctant to proceed with this case and witho