http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 7

CASE NO.:

Appeal (crl.) 413 of 2000

PETITIONER:

Anjani Kumar

RESPONDENT:

State of Bihar and Anr

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/04/2008

BENCH:

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

REPORTABLE

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 413 OF 2000

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned

Single Judge of the Patna High Court dismissing the petition

filed by the appellant in terms of Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the ’Code’). The appellant

in the said petition had prayed for quashing the order dated

2.12.1993 taking cognizance of offences punishable under

Sections 465, 466, 468, 469 and 471 of Indian Penal Code,

1860 (in short the ’IPC’) in Begusarai Town P.S. Case No.63 of

1993.

2. Background facts as projected by the appellant are

essentially as follows:

On 29.8.1992 an application by respondent No.2

(hereinafter referred to as the ’complainant’) was filed for

cancellation of Form 19 filed relating to the license of M/s

Arun Medical Hall. On the said date, appellant sent a report

for cancellation of the application form for license. On the

same date, as per the directions of District Magistrate,

appellant conducted raid at the medical shop of respondent

No.2 around 5.15 p.m. in the presence of two Executive

Magistrates and certain medicines were seized. On 8.9.1992

appellant filed FIR (P.S. Case No.258/92) and a case was

registered against respondent No.2 for alleged commission of

offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 IPC and

Sections 27(b)(ii) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940

(in short ’Drugs Act’). On 15.9.1992 respondent No.2 filed an

application for bail. Significantly there was no averment in the

bail petition that the appellant demanded bribe or made any

interpolation of records. On 10.10.1992 respondent NO.2

moved the Civil Surgeon for release of the seized medicines.

Here again there was no allegation of demand of bribe and

interpolation. On 7.11.1992 appellant informed the authorities

about the threats received from respondent No.2 and others.

On 16.11.1992 respondent No.2 moved the learned Chief

Judicial Magistrate for release of seized medicines. Here again,

there was no allegation of demand of bribe or interpolation of

records. On 16.12.1992 appellant informed the police officials

about the threat received from respondent No.2 and others

and requested to protect his life. On 4.2.1993 a complaint was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 7

made by respondent No.2 alleging that appellant had

committed offences punishable under Sections 161, 167, 465,

466, 469 and 471 IPC and on the basis of the complaint, FIR

was registered.

3. According to the appellant, there was no explanation

offered as to why there was delay in filing the complaint and

there was no grievance that the police officials had refused to

register any FIR. On 31.7.1993 an order purported to have

been passed under Section 196 of the Code was passed by

District Magistrate according sanction for prosecution of the

appellant. On 4.8.1993 charge sheet was filed against the

appellant for alleged commission of offences under Sections

465, 466, 469 and 471 IPC. Here again, there was no

allegation of alleged commission of offence relating to demand

of bribe which is punishable under the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 (in short ’PC Act’). On 2.12.1993

cognizance was taken.

4. It is submitted that the District Magistrate had no

authority to grant sanction purportedly under Section 196 of

the Code. Further in the petition before the High Court it was

categorically stated as follows:

"15. That it is stated that the Incharge of the

Peon Book or the Issue Register is not the

petitioner. It is in the hands of the clerk of the

office and the concerned clerk was the

appointee of Dr. A.A. Mallick whose services