STATE Vs. GHANSHYAM DHACHICH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a State appeal against the acquittal of the respondent filed after obtaining leave. The respondent was being prosecuted before the learned IX Additional Munsif-Magistrate, Gonda for an offence punishable under section 22 of the U. P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953. When the case came up for hearing, the learned Magistrate on hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the parties felt that the sanction for prosecution given by the Additional District Magistrate, Gonda, was not in accordance with the provisions of Section 23 of the afore- said Act of 1953. Section 23 provided that no prosecution could be instituted under that Act except upon a complaint made by or under the authority of the Cane Commissioner or the District Magistrate. On the wordings of section 23 aforesaid the learned Magistrate held that the sanction having been accorded by the Additional District Magistrate Gonda, was not in accordance with the said provision. He accordingly acquitted the respondent. It is against this order that the State has filed this appeal after obtaining leave and it has been contended that the learned Magistrate has erred in ignoring the provisions of section 20 (2) of the CrPC. Sub-section (2) of section 20 read like this :- " The State Government may appoint any Executive Magistrate to be an Additional District Magistrate and such Magistrate shall have all or any of the powers of a District Magistrate under this code or under any other law for the time being in force." It has not been disputed that Sri Jagdish Singh was appointed as Additional District Magistrate Gonda and was functioning as such when he accorded sanction for the prosecution, The learned Deputy Government Advocate has produced a copy of the notification issued by the State Government in the Appointment Department dated 21st March 1977 appointing Sri Jagdish Singh to be the Additional District Magistrate of Gonda under section 20 (2) mentioning therein that he shall exercise all the powers of the District Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure and under any other law for the time being in force.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the respondent has argued that the District Magistrate under section 23 of the aforesaid Act was a person designated and consequently the Additional District Magistrate could not have granted the sanction. I am unable to agree with the contention. A plain reading of the language of section 23 indicates that a complaint could be lodged by or under the authority of the District Magistrate. Section 20 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with the notification dated 21st March 1977 will indicate that Sri Jagannath Singh was appointed Additional District Magistrate Gonda and was empowered to exercise all the powers of the District Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure and under any other law for the time being in force. The later term includes the U. P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953.

(3.) THE appeal is accordingly allowed and the order dated 9-4-1980 passed by the learned Magistrate acquitting the respondent is set aside. THE case shall be sent back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gonda, who may either dispose it of himself or transfer it to a court having jurisdiction to decide the matter. Appeal allowed.