KOYA Vs. MUTHUKOYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case had a chequered career. A private complaint was filed against four persons. The 4th accused is the Sub-Registrar of Androth island in 1970. The offences disclosed in the complaint are under S. 468 and 471 ipc. The complaint was dismissed on 12 51971 for the non-appearance of the complainant. A criminal revision petition was filed questioning the dismissal of the complaint. It was allowed on 7 21972 and the complaint was restored to file. On 22 41972, A4 filed a petition contending that the Magistrate could not take cognizance of the complaint for want of sanction under S. 197 of the crl. P. C. , he being a public servant removable only by the State Government. On 1112 1972, A4 was ordered to be removed from the array of parties. The petitioner took the matter in revision before the Sessions Judge, Calicut. The said revision was dismissed on 10-41974. It is against this order that the present revision is filed.

(2.) THE short question that falls for decision in this case is, whether the Administrator, Lakshadeep, is a "state government" within S. 197 of the Crl. P. C. Incidentally, the question whether the allegations against A4 in the complaint constitute any offence committed by him in discharge of his official duties, also arises. THE petitioner would contend that the accusation against A4, who is the respondent here, has nothing to do with his official duties and therefore S. 197 is not attracted.

(3.) ON a reading of Para. 7 of the complaint it is seen that the accusations contained therein have nothing to do with the official duties of the 2nd respondent However, the accusations contained in Para. 10 of the complaint disclose acts done by him in the discharge of his official duties. The complaint cannot be truncated. Both Para. 7 and 10 have to be taken into account. If they are read together it becomes clear that at lease in one portion of the complaint there are allegations against the 4th accused, of his having done something in discharge of his official duties. That being so, the argument by the petitioner's counsel that the complaint does not contain materials against the 4th accused, of his having done anything in discharge of his official duties cannot be accepted. The authorities cited in support of his contention and reported in Bhagwan Prasad Srivastava v. N. P. Mishra (AIR. 1970 sc. 1661), Prabhakar V. Sinari v. Shankar Anant Verlekar (AIR. 1969 SC. 686)and Vaidyanatha Ayyer v. State of Kerala (1961 KLT. 144) need not be considered in view of the clear averments in Para. 10 of the complaint. The first point raised before me, therefore fails.