Honble PANWAR, J.–This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 1.7.2006 passed by Sessions Judge, Dungarpur (for short the revisional court hereinafter) whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 17.2.2005 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dungarpur (for short the trial court hereinafter) was dismissed.

(2). The brief facts of the case to the extent they are relevant and necessary for the decision of the instant criminal misc. petition are that on 29.3.1999, the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Bichhiwara lodged a report against Block Development Officer Jayant Kumar Pandiya, Junior Accountant Govind Ram Verma and Fitter Jahoor Ahmed alleging therein that they have misused and embezzled the Govt. money in the matter of purchase of tools for hand-pumps. After investigation, the police filed challan for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C. Along with the challan, the Additional Public Prosecutor appearing before the trial court filed an application under Section 169 Cr.P.C. and a letter issued by the Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur dated 9.6.2003 addressed to the District Police Superintendent, Dungarpur, stating therein that on the relevant date of physical verification of the store, since the tools were kept at some other place, therefore, they were not found in the store. However, subsequently, those very tools were distributed to the Hand-pump Mistries and therefore, the purchased material has been used. However, financial irregularities appear to have been committed by Pandiya, and therefore, the State Government instead of according sanction to prosecute the petitioner, decided to proceed against the petitioner departmentally under the C.C.A. Rules. In these circumstances, the prosecution sought release of the present petitioner under Section 169 Cr.P.C. The trial court, dismissed the application and took the cognizance of the offences against the petitioner.

(3). I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the orders passed by both the courts below and the letter of the State Govt. dated 9.6.2003 filed by the prosecution.

(4). It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no valid sanction to prosecute the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner is protected by Section 197 Cr.P.C. from being prosecuted. Thus, the trial court fell in error in taking cognizance against the petitioner without there being any valid sanction to prosecute him. Learned counsel has relied on decisions of Honble Supreme Court in Matajog Dobey vs. H.C. Bhari, AIR 1956 SC 44, in State of Orissa and Ors. vs. Ganesh Chandra Jew 2004 AIR SCW 1926, in Rakesh Kumar Mishra vs. State of Bihar and Ors. 2006 AIR SCW 189 and in Sankaran Moitra vs. Sadhna Das and Anr. 2006 AIR SCW 1695.

(5). In State of Orissa vs. Ganesh Chandra Jew (supra) Honble Supreme Court held as under:

"So far public servants are concerned the cognizance of any offence, by any Court, is barred by S. 197 of the Code unless sanction is obtained from the appropriate authority, if the offence, alleged to have been committed, was in discharge of the official duty. The sanction not only specifies the persons to whom the protection is afforded but it also specifies the conditions and circumstances in which it shall be available and the effect in law if the conditions are satisfied. The mandatory character of the protection afforded to a public servant is brought out by the expression, "no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction". Use of the words, "no" and "shall" make it abundantly clear that the bar on the exercise of power by the Court to take cognizance of any offence is absolute and complete. Very cognizance is barred. That is the complaint, cannot be taken notice of. According to Blacks Law Dictionary the word cognizance means "jurisdiction" or "the exercise of jurisd

Click Here to Read the rest of this document