Back
2013 Supreme(Chh) 149
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Radhe Shyam Sharma, J.
DEENA RAM - Petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF C.G. - Respondent
M.Cr.C. No. 673 of 2001
Decided On : 10-5-2013
Shri Rajeev Shrivastava and Shri Malay Shrivastava, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Shri Anand Verma, Panel Lawyer, for the State/respondent.
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 and 197 – Indian Forest Act – Sections 41 and 69 – Servant and Sanction – Sanction for Prosecution – Demanded Permission – Petitioner was posted as Assistant Station Master at Railway Station Teganmada person brought forest timber and asked petitioner for booking said timber for outstation – Petitioner demanded permission person put timber inside office of petitioner and left office assuring that he will come back with necessary permission but said person never returned – Petitioner reported matter to Station Master on same day timber was seized by forest officers and offence was registered against the petitioner and charge sheet was filed before Judicial Magistrate First Glass, Bilaspur – Held, Policy of legislature is to afford adequate protection to public servants to ensure that they are not prosecuted for anything done by them in discharge of their official duties without reasonable cause and if sanction is granted to confer on chooses to exercise it complete control of prosecution – Protection has certain limits and is available only when alleged act done by public servant is reasonably connected with discharge of his official duty and is not merely a cloak for doing objectionable act – Petitioner and petitioner had no transport permit or other documents notice was issued to petitioner but he refused to take notice – Petitioner one person brought wood and asked for booking – Petitioner asked the person to produce the permit but he had left office and wood was already lying inside office of petitioner – Petition Dismissed.
1. Invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the order dated 06-02-2001 passed by 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Criminal Revision No. 454/2000 and order dated 27-11-2000 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur in Criminal Case No. 2/2000.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as under:-
On 25-08-1996, the petitioner was posted as Assistant Station Master at Railway Station Teganmada. On 26-08-1996, a person brought forest timber and asked the petitioner for booking the said timber for outstation. The petitioner demanded the permission. The said person put the timber inside the office of the petitioner and left the office assuring that he will come back with the necessary permission but the said person never returned. The petitioner reported the matter to the Station Master on the same day. On 26-08-1996 timber was seized by the forest officers and offence under Sections 41 and 69 of the Indian Forest Act was registered against the petitioner and the charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Glass, Bilaspur. The petitioner filed an application under Section 197 Cr.P.C. stating that the petitioner is a public servant and sanction under Section 197 is necessary but his application was rejected by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur. The petitioner filed Criminal Revision before 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. Learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur dismissed the revision petition. Hence, this petition.
3. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava and Shri Malay Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner is a Central Govt. employee and he was appointed by the Railway Recruiting Board and Divisional Railway Manager and he had discharged his duty in course of his official capacity as public servant. Therefore, sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. necessary. Therefore complaint was liable to be quashed for want of sanction for prosecution.
4. Shri Anand Verma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent has contended that the alleged act/action of the petitioner has no nexus with his official duty. Sanction is, therefore, not require to prosecute him.
5. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have perused the impugned order of courts below and also record of Criminal Case No. 2/2000 (New No. 608/2010).
6. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur held thus :
^^mijksDr dkj.k ls vfHk;qDr dks ek= bl vk/kkj ij fd og ‘kkldh; lsod dh Js.kh es vkrk gS] /kkjk 197 n-iz-la- ds varxZr ‘kklu dh vuqefr fy;s fcuk vfHk;ksftr ugh fd;k tk ldrkA rdZ laxrizrhr ugh gksrk gSA cfYd fdlh Hkh ‘kkldh; lsod dks mlds ‘kkldh; drZO; ds fuoZgu ds le; dh xbZ dk;Zokgh dh izd`fr ds vk/kkj ij /kkjk 197 n-iz-la- ds izko/kkuks dk fopkj.k djuk vko’;d gSA vr% vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls izLrqr vkosnu&i= varxZr /kkjk 197 n-iz-la- fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA^^
7. In State of H.P. Vs. M.P. Gupta (2004) 2 SCC 349, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus :
"11. .........17. The words’ ‘any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty’ employed in Section 197(1) of the Code, are capable of a narrow as well as a wide interpretation. If these words are construed too narrowly, the section will be rendered altogether sterile, for, ‘it is no part of an official duty to commit an offence, and never can be’. In the wider sense, these 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. The right approach to the import of these words lies between these two extremes. While on the one hand, it is not every offence committed by a public servant while engaged in the performance of his official duty, which is entitled to the protection of Section 197(1), an act constituting an offence, directly
