SHAMIM AHMED ANSARI S/O LATE SHRI RASHID AHMED R/O 438 INDRA NAGAR COLONY V. VIHAR, DEHRADUN Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND THROUGH SECRETARY HOME DEHRADUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . By means of this petition moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.02.2012, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, in criminal revision no. 21 of 2010, Shamim Ahmed Ansari vs. State, whereby the order dated 01.04.2009, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal, in criminal case no. 1556 of 2003, rejecting the plea of requirement of sanction under section 197 Cr.P.C., is affirmed.

(2.) SUPPLEMENTARY affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner be taken on record.

(3.) IT appears that on 29.01.2008, the present petitioner moved an application for his discharge on the ground that the cognizance of the offences punishable under section 409, 120B IPC, as against him are barred for the want of sanction required under section 197 Cr.P.C.. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide his order dated 01.04.2009, rejected said application with the observation that in view of the principle of law laid down in Harihar Prasad vs. State of Bihar : (1972) 3 SCC 89, the commission of offence punishable under section 409 IPC read with section 120B IPC, cannot be said to been committed in discharge of any public duties as such, the offence do not attract section 197 Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by said order dated 01.04.2009, the present petitioner filed criminal revision no. 21 of 2010, before the revisional court. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, after hearing the parties, dismissed said revision vide impugned order dated 15.02.2012, upholding the order passed by the Magistrate. The revisional court has also relied on the principle of law laid down in Harihar Prasad (supra) and Himachal Pradesh vs. M.P. Gupta (AIR 2004 SC 730). In both the above cases, the Apex Court has taken the view that the offence punishable under section 409 IPC read with section 120 IPC, cannot be said to have been committed in discharge of public duties and does not require sanction under section 197 Cr.P.C..