RAGHU D Vs. NELAKANTA CHANNAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner with regard to admission of the case. Perused the records.

(2.) THE respondent herein filed a private complaint against the petitioner under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., making allegations against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 463, 464, 466, 469, 470, 471 of IPC. The learned Magistrate after filing of the complaint took cognizance of the matter, recorded the sworn statements of the complainant and the witnesses produced by the complainant. Thereafter, found sufficient material to proceed against the accused, hence, ordered to register a case against the accused in CC No.816/2013 and issued a summons for appearance of the accused. At this juncture, the petitioner approached this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

(3.) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance without there being a proper sanction order, supporting the complaint as the petitioner was working as a Range Forest Officer, Siddapur Range, Uttara Kannada. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations made in the compliant even if it is treated as evidence, at this stage the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner while discharging his duty as a public servant. Therefore, the sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C is absolutely necessary. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that Section 114A of the Karnataka Forest Act is on par with section 197 of Cr.P.C., protects the act of the petitioner done while discharging his duties as a public servant. There cannot be any civil suit or criminal prosecution against such public officers, who have done some offence while discharging their duties as public servants. Of course, the learned Magistrate has not whispered anything in his order about the sanction, whether required or not prior to taking of the cognizance. But, the learned Magistrate can take up this particular aspect at any point of time in future, if it is raised by the other side that sanction is necessary. The Magistrate has to consider the complaint averments and also the sworn statement and also the materials produced by the accused, while challenging the complaint on the ground that the complaint is not maintainable without a valid sanction order by the competent authority. The Magistrate on going through the materials on record, if he is of the opinion that the act done by the public servant was under the colour of his office, while discharging his duty as such a public servant. Then the Magistrate can direct the complainant to approach the Court again after obtaining valid sanction. If the Magistrate is of the opinion that the offence alleged, done by the public servant not under the colour of his office or while discharging his duty as a public servant and there was no nexus between the public duty and the offence alleged, then the Magistrate can take a decision to continue the prosecution against the accused without there being any sanction. But, the Magistrate as early as possible has to pass an order whether the sanction is necessary under the facts and circumstances of a particular case or not. I have carefully perused provisions under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. and also Section 114A of Karnataka Forest Act, which reads as follows: -