BABU LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these four cases are being disposed of by this common order as these arise out of the same fact.

(2.) IT appears that the revisionists were sent up in cases nos. 355 of 79 and 356 of 79 of police station Kotwali Fatehpur on 8-9-1979 to stand their trial under Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act (Act No. 10 of 1955) crime nos. 4 and 5 of 78 Kotwali, Fatehpur. Cognizance of the offence was taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 12-2-1979. After adjournments dated 8-7-80 and 19-8-80 revisionists were charged by learned Magistrate on 28-9-80. Pending this case it transpired that requisite sanction for prosecution was wanting. Section 11 of the aforesaid Act relating to sanction is extracted below ; "11. No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act except on a report in writing of the facts constituting such offence made by a person who is a public servant as defined in Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)". This Section was amended by UP Act No. IX of 1974 by which the District Magistrate or any other officer empowered by the State Government was to accord requisite sanction without which cognizance of the offence was barred. The sanction had not been received despite D. O. No. 577 of 80 sent by learned CJM on 19-9-80 to S. P. Fatehpur. Revisionists prayed on 19-8-80 and 21-10-80 that they must be discharged for want of sanction. IT was on 21-10-80 1hat the Chief Judicial Magistrate observed that the proceedings are nullity but could proceed on a receipt of sanction and fresh charge-sheet dated 21-10-80 and iso application of revisionists was rejected giving rise to these cases. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

(3.) I do not subscribe to this view for the simple reason that in the aforesaid case no sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC was essential for prosecution of focused of that case under Section 409 IPC and as such the non-procuring of the anction was not fatal. In the instant case Section 11 is imperative and provides hat every court is barred from taking cognizance of the offence without such anction. In face of this mandate all the proceedings conducted in the court of Magistrate after taking cognizance of the offence without sanction were illegal, Procuring the sanction under Section 11 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 as a condition precedent for taking cognizance of the offence. He had no jurisdiction to take cognizance 0f the offence tor non compliance of section 11 aforesaid.