R A GOEL Vs. KARTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Kartar Singh filed a complaint on July 11, 1966 under Sections 452, 427, 506, 392, 147 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code against K.L. Kapur, Superintending Engineer, Ram Avtar Goyal, Executive Engineer, Tarsern Lal Sharma, Sub-Divisional Engineer, Lal Chand, Road Inspector, and four other employees of the Public Works Department, Buildings and Roads, Dharamsala. The trial Magistrate, as per order dated July 21, 1966 directed that the accused other than K.L. Kapur be summoned. It was also observed that a prima fade case had been made out against the accused other than K.L. Kapur. A revision was filed by Ram Avtar and Tarsern Lal Sharma in the Court of Session and it was argued on their behalf that they were public servants not removable from office save by or with the sanction of the State Government and that the trial Court could not take cognizance of the offence without the previous sanction of the State Government. The learned Sessions Judge, Kangra, dismissed the revision. Ram Avtar has not come up in revision to this Court.

(2.) According to the allegations as made in the complaint, Kartar Singh complainant is the owner of the site in dispute and constructed a brick wall on the same in March, 1960. Tarsern Lal Sharma and Lal Chand accused thereafter set up pillars on that wall. On an application made by the complainant the Kanungo found that the site in dispute belonged to the complainant. The complainant thereafter served a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure upon the Government. On July 7, 1966, it is stated, the complainant collected material for putting a lintel on the wall mentioned above. Tarsern Lal Sharma and Lal Chand accused then came to the spot and asked him to desist. The complainant then represented to them that the site in dispute belonged to him. The case of the complainant further is that on July 10, 1966 the eight accused came there. Some of them carried spades. K.L. Kapur, Superintending Engineer, then gave an order to the remaining accused to demolish the wall. K.L. Kapur himself thereafter left the place in his car. Ram Avtar, Tarsern Lal Sharma and Lal Chand then crossed the wall and directed the labourers to demolish the wall and take away the material. The complainant remonstrated with Ram Avtar that the wall belonged to him. Ram Avtar, however, directed that the wall be removed, and left in his jeep. Lal Chand is stated thereafter to have given a push to the wife of the complainant as a result of which she became unconscious. Demage was also caused to the material collected by the complainant at the place. The complainant consequently suffered a loss of Rs. 500.00. Ram Avtar thereafter again came to the spot accompained by the police. Ram Avtar then broke the plank which had been put up there and caused damage to the lintel. The Assistant Sub-Inspector then asked Ram Avtar not to intervene. The Assistant Sub-Inspector thereafter put the complainant and his brother under arrest. According to the complainant the accused had committed offences under the sections mentioned above, and should be proceeded against accordingly.

(3.) The contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner in this Court is that the trial Magistrate could not take cognizance of the offence against the petitioner without the previous sanction of the State Government as contemplated by Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sub-section (1) of that Section reads as under :-