Back
1988 Supreme(All) 227
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
A. N. Dikshita
BHAGWAN PRASAD SAXENA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
Cri. Misc. Application 8499 Of 1986
Decided On : 04/21/1988
G.C.SAXENA, T.P.SINGH
Section 197 of the CrPC, which requires prior sanction for prosecution of public servants, is not attracted in the case of officers of nationalised banks as they are not public servants removable from office only with the sanction of the Government.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 197 - PUBLIC SERVANT - APPLICABILITY - SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION - NOT REQUIRED FOR OFFICERS OF NATIONALISED BANKS - JURISDICTION - MAGISTRATE HAS JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN COMPLAINT AGAINST OFFICERS OF NATIONALISED BANKS - SUMMONS - LEGALLY ISSUED - NO ABUSE OF PROCESS OF COURT.
Fact of the Case:
Applicants, officers of Allahabad Bank, challenged the cognizance taken by the Magistrate of a complaint filed against them under various sections of the IPC, alleging that the complaint was barred by Section 197 of the CrPC as no prior sanction for prosecution had been obtained.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that Section 197 of the CrPC, which requires prior sanction for prosecution of public servants, is not attracted in the case of officers of nationalised banks as they are not public servants removable from office only with the sanction of the Government.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 197 of the CrPC applies to officers of nationalised banks? 2. Whether the Magistrate had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint against the applicants? 3. Whether the summons issued to the applicants were legally issued?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 197 of the CrPC applies only to public servants who are not removable from office save by or with the sanction of the Government. 2. Officers of nationalised banks are not public servants removable from office only with the sanction of the Government, hence Section 197 of the CrPC is not attracted in their case. 3. The Magistrate had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint against the applicants based on the allegations in the complaint, oral testimony, and documentary evidence. 4. The summons issued to the applicants were legally issued as the Magistrate had applied his mind and found a case for summoning the applicants.
Final Decision: The Court rejected the application under Section 482 of the CrPC and dismissed the revision petition, holding that there was no abuse of process of Court and no illegality in issuing summons to the accused persons.
( 1 ) APPLICANTS Bhngwan Prasad Saxena, Chandra Kishore Mehrotra and Vijai Kumar Kapoor have filed this application under section 488, Cr. P. C. for quashing the proceedings of Case No. 983/9 of 1986 (N. S. Kaushik v. Murari Lal Arya and others) pending in the Court of Addi. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad and also praying for staying operation of the order dated 14. 5. 86 passed in the above case.
( 2 ) THE above named applicants have also filed a criminal revision No. 1153 of 1986 for setting aside the order dated 14. 5. 86 passed by Addi. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad in Case No. 983/9 of 1986 (Narottam Saran Kaushik v. Murari Lal Arya and others, and also for staying operation of the said order. In the application tinder section 482, Cr. P. C. as well as in the criminalrevision the order dated 14. 5. 86 has been assailed.
( 3 ) AS common questions of fact and law are involved in the present case both the cases i. e. the application under section 482, Cr. P. C. and the Criminal Revision are disposed of by this judgment.
( 4 ) FACTS in brief are that respondent No. 2 N. S. Kaushik filed a complaint under sections 167/170/201/218/427 and 34/120, IPC in the Court of Addi. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad. The learned Magistrate directed the case to be registered and for putting up the record for the statement under section 200, Cr. P. C. The statement of the complainant respondent No. 2 was recorded by the learned Magistrate on 12. 5. 86 and the case was listed for orders on 13. 5. 86. On 14. 5. 86 the following orders were passed: the complainant has argued the case in person. The complaint discloses act of the accused persons in discharge of, their official capacity. The question as to whether the proceedings are barred by provisions of section 197, Cr. P. C. can be decided at the time when accused persons appear and plead their cause. From perusal of evidence on record although no oral evidence has been produced, what ever documentary evidence has been produced. I find that prima facie a case under sections 167/170/201/218 read with- section 34 and, 120-B, IPC in made outs As such co-summon the accused persons under sections above fixing 30. 6. 1986 for their appearance complainant to take steps in a week. Sd/-Ill. A. C. J. M. 14. 5. 1986 The above order gave rise to the application under section 482, Cr. P. C. and the criminal revision. On 30. 6. 86 accused Vijai Kumar Kapoor filed an application for exemption of personal attendance which was allowed and he was directed to appear on the next date. On that very day besides the application for exemption of personal attendance accused No. 8 also filed applications for challenging the territorial jurisdiction as well as an application under section 197, Cr. P. C. Another application was filed by accused No. 8 to drop the proceedings as the averments in the complaint do not show any criminal liability. The learned Magistrate ordered that all the applications shall be disposed of on 19. 8. 86 on which date the complainant was directed to either file written objections or argue the case. As summons issued against accused No. 1 to 7 were not received back fresh summons were issued for the date. On 20. 8 86 when the case was taken up stay orders passed by this Court were filed and the proceedings were stayed.
( 5 ) IT may be mentioned here that the complaint was filed against a accused persons and appearance was put in only on behalf of accused No. 8 Vijai Kumar Kapoor. The application under section 482, Cr. P. C as well as criminal revision under sections 397/40, Cr. P. C. has been preferred by Bhagwan Prasad Saxena, accused No. 7, Chandra Kishore Mehrotra accused No. 6 and Vijai Kumar Kapoor accused No. 8. The other accused No. 1 to 5 are neither parties to the application nor to the revisions.
( 6 ) HEARD the counsel for the applicants and N. S. Kaushik, complainant opposite-party No. 2.
( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicants Sri G. C. Saxena
