DURGA PRASAD KHOSLA Vs. R A RAHMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application in revision and Crl-Minal tevislon No. 11250 of 1154 have been made by the same petitioner, namely, Durga Prasad Khosla and as inter alia a common question oft law arises in both of them, I propose to dispose of both these applications in revision by this Judgment. Criminal Kevlsion No. 1249 of 1964 Is directed against an order of the learned Sessions Judge, Meerut, dismissing an application in revision filed by the petitioner against an order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Baharanpur dismissing the complaint filed by him against respondent Sri. A, Kahmani, District and Sessions Judge of Saharanpur. The other application in revision is directed against an order of the Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, saharanpur dismissing an application in revision filed by the petitioner against an order of the learned Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Sanaranpur dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner against Sri Siddha Nand, former Munsif Hawaii, Saharanpur. Both tile complaints were dismissed on the ground that the sanction of the State Government as required by Section 197, Cri, P. C. for the filing of the complaints had not been obtained.

(2.) TWO contentions have been raised by the petitioner (i) that it was not open to the learned Magistrate to have dismissed the complaints after having taken cognizance of the case and (ii) that Section 197 of Cri. P. C. was not attracted to the complaints on the allegations made therein and as such the orders of dismissal were not sustainable in law,

(3.) IT appears that the learned Magistrate had fixed a date for recording the statement of the complainant and it was thereafter that the complaints were dismissed. The contention advanced toy the petitioner is that the learned Magistrates were not competent to dismiss the complaints once they had taken cognizance of the cases. A reference to the orders made by the learned Magistrates indicates that even when they had fixed a date for recording the statement of the complainant, they entertained a doubt as to whether the com-plaints could be maintainable without the sanction of the State Government as required by Section 197 of Cri. P. C. The bar created by Section 197 of Cri. P. C. is couched in mandatory language and it is within the competence of a Court to dismiss a complaint for want of sanction as required by Section 197, Cri. P. C. even after taking cognizance of the case. If the contention advanced by the petitioner were to be accepted, the result will be that if once a Magistrate takes cognizance of a complaint against a public servant, he would be incompetent at a later stage to dismiss the complaint for want of sanction required by Section 197, Cri. P. C. even though legally It was incumbent on the complainant to Have obtained the sanction prior to the filing of the complaint, in this connection reference may usefully be made to the following observations made in the case of Matajog Dobey v. H. C. Bhari, (S) AIR 1950 SC 44: