Back
2024 Supreme(Ori) 170
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SIBO SANKAR MISHRA, J.
Nruparaj Sahu – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha and Another – Respondents
CRLMC No. 3816 of 2023
Decided On : 20-06-2024
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Public Servants and Sanction
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Criminal Conspiracy - Allegations of criminal conspiracy do not negate the requirement for sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. (Para 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Government servant, was accused of issuing a Caste Certificate improperly while serving as Tahasildar, leading to criminal charges including forgery and conspiracy. (Paras 3, 6)
Findings of Court:
The learned Judge ruled that the petitioner issued the Caste Certificate in discharge of official duty and was thus entitled to protection under Section 197. (Paras 19)
Issues: Whether the cognizance order against the petitioner is valid in the absence of government sanction and the implications of criminal conspiracy allegations. (Paras 11, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the petitioner acted within the scope of his official duties in issuing the Caste Certificate, necessitating prior sanction for prosecution. (Paras 7, 19)
Result: The CRLMC is allowed and the cognizance order is set aside.
For the Appellant : Devidutta Mohapatra
For the Respondent: P.K. Maharaj
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initial case details and alleged offences (Para 1 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. sanction under section 197 cr.p.c. required (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. case law on official duty and necessity of sanction (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. counterarguments regarding allegations of conspiracy (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. validity of adoption and issuance of caste certificate (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. protected under section 197 due to official duty (Para 19) |
| 7. conclusion - order set aside (Para 20) |
JUDGMENT :
SIBO SANKAR MISHRA, J.
1. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing of the order dated 02.05.2015 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Saintala in G.R. Case No.192 of 2012 corresponding to Saitala P.S. Case No.123 of 2012 taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections-420/467/468/471/477-A/120-B of the IPC in so far as the petitioner is concerned. By the impugned order, cognizance of offences has been taken against the petitioner and six others for various other offences without there being a valid sanction from the competent officer against the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. Devidutta Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Maharaj, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State.
3. The prosecution story in the present case is that on 09.08.2012, the opposite party No.2 vide its office letter bearing No.1883/SSD had complained to the I.I.C., Saintala Police Station for lodging the F.I.R. against one Kuni Mallick @ Pratibha Pradhan and others, wherein it was alleged that they had obtained fake Caste Certificates from the Revenue Officer of Balangir. It is alleged that the State Level Scrutiny Committee has found that the Caste Certificate has been fraudulently obtained by Kuni Mallick with the help of other accused persons. It is also stated that Kuni Mallick had adopted several means to manipulate the records of the Revenue Department. On 09.08.2012, the I.I.C. has registered the case. The present petitioner was posted as Tahaslidar, Titlagarh at the time of the alleged commission of offence. Against the petitioner, it is alleged that he had issued the Caste Certificate to Kuni Mallick without appropriately verifying and by entering into a criminal conspiracy with the main accused.
4. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed on 22.04.2015 arraying as many as seven accused persons. The present petitioner is accused No.7.
5. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from the merits of the case, the cognizance order is not sustainable under law in absence of proper sanction contemplated under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. The Court ought not to have taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 420 /467/468/471/477-A/120-B of the IPC against the petitioner sans valid sanction as the petitioner is admittedly a Government servant.
6. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on the basis of the report submitted by the Revenue Inspector, the Petitioner being the Tahasildar, had issued the Caste Certificate. The relevant part of the charge sheet would indicate that the petitioner had issued the Caste Certificate while discharging his official duty which reads as under:
“That apart, the concerned Addl. Tahasildars, Dungripali and Tahasildar, Titlagarh, Ex-RI Saintala, who had issued caste certificate in favour of the lady Kuni Mallik @ Pratibha Padhan without proper application of mind and improper verification, enquiry into their caste status taking into consideration of their genealogy of both the families. Hence, they are liable for such omission and commission according to rule 08 (05) of the Orissa Caste Certificate (for SC & ST), Rules, 1980.”
7. Even if the allegations are taken at its face value, it is apparent that the petitioner had issued the Caste Certificate while exercising his official authority as Tahasildar. Therefore, “the act complained of” is coming under “the colour of duty” assigned to the petitioner. In t
