LAKSHMANSINH HIMATSINHJI VAGHELA DR Vs. NARESHKUMAR CHANDRASHANKER ZALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner original accused has challenged the issuance of process under secs. 465 468 and 201 I.P.C. on the ground that the requisite sanction under sec. 197 Cri. P. C. 1973; is not obtained and therefore the court could not have taken cognizance and issued the process. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner does not want to lead any evidence for a decision on the question of necessity of sanction.

(2.) The facts are simple and not in dispute for the purpose of deciding the present question. The petitioner has been in the pay and service of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation a Local authority. He is Laboratory Officer in Ahmedabad municipal Corporation and therefore he is a public servant as defined in sec. 21 (twelfth) (b) I.P.C. which reads as under:

(3.) Thus he is a public servant as defined in clause (b). It is not his case that he is a public servant falling under any other clause of sec. 21.