PREM NARAIN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed under Section 482, Cr. P. C. (New) for quashing the proceedings pending before the III Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No. 98 of 1973 against the applicants and the charges framed under Sections 468/34 and 471/34, I. P. C. and the amended charges under Sections 420 and 120-B, I. P. C.

(2.) PREM Narain is a member of the Municipal Board, Soron and Mayaram is the Overseer of that Board. A complaint was filed against them by one Wazir Ali, brother of Kifayat Ali, who was another member of the Municipal Board. It was under Section 409, I. P. C. to the effect that certain construction work was to be carried out within the limits of the Municipal Board, Soron for which sanction of the Chairman had been obtained. That work was to be carried on under the supervision of Maya Ram the petitioner and Prem Narain as member of the Municipal Board was required to certify that the work had been completed. It was alleged that the work had not been carried on at all but a wrong certificate had been given by Prem Narain that the work had been completed and a false muster-roll had been prepared by Maya-ram. The Magistrate took cognizance on the basis of that complaint and framed charges under Sections 468/34 and 471/34, I. P. C. and committed the case to the court of Session for trial. The trial was almost completed and was ready for judgment. The Sessions Judge then realised that the charges had to be amended and so the amended charges were framed under Sections 420 and 120-B, I. P. C. Further evidence was ordered to be recorded. It was at this stage that the present petition was filed and stay order was obtained.

(3.) PREM Narain has been suspended by the Government because a criminal case was pending against him. Mayaram too has been suspended. Learned Counsel for the applicants has argued that the applicants have been put to a great harassment because of groupism in the Municipal Board and they are likely to suffer more by a prolonged trial. It was argued that the Magistrate wrongly took cognizance in the absence of sanction of the Government under Section 197, Cr. P. C. (old) and as such the entire proceedings were vitiated. No counter-affidavit was filed in this case although time for filing the counter-affidavit was taken.