STATE OF U P Vs. PARAS NATH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant-State. The Criminal Misc. Case was filed seeking grant of leave to prefer an appeal against the judgment and order dated 19-4-2007 passed by vs. Additional Sessions Judge, Sitapur, whereby the accused respondent was directed to be acquitted of the charges relatable to Sections 409 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short IPC). The only factor which weighed with the High Court in refusing grant of leave to appeal was that the person who granted sanction for intiation of the criminal proceedings was not the authority to do so. It is to be noted that the trial in this case was held by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur. The accused faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 409, 420, 461 and 468, IPC. The trial Court held that the accused was guilty of offence punishable under Sections 409 and 468, IPC. In appeal, learned vs. Additional Sessions Judge, Sitapur, allowed the appeal primarily on three grounds. Firstly, it was held that the person who accorded sanction was not authorised to do so. Secondly, it was observed that in view of the provisions contained under Sections 218, 219, and 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Code) charges could not have been framed in respect of the transaction for more than one year and, therefore, because of the framing of wrong charges the accused was entitled to acquittal. Finally, it was observed that appropriate questions were not put while the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code. In this context the Appellate Court referred to the question of sanction by the inappropriate authority. As noted above, the High Court referred to only the question of authority of the person granting sanction.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no part of the alleged offence is protected under Section 197 of the Code, and the effect of Section 464 of the Code has to be seen.

(3.) Prior to examining whether the Courts below committed any error of law in discharging the accused it may not be out of place to examine the nature of power exercised by the Court under Section 197 of the Code and the extent of protection it affords to public servant, who apart, from various hazards in discharge of their duties, in absence of a provision like the one may be exposed to vexatious prosecutions. Section 197(1) and (2) of the Code reads as under :