DWARIKA PRASAD SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) G. B. Singh, J. This criminal revision is directed against the order, dated September 22, 1981 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bahraich, holding that the Magistrate cannot take cognizance against Vidya Sagar Singh, opposite party No. 2 and Nebu Lal, opposite party No. 3, without sanction under Section 197, Cr. P. C.

(2.) DWARIKA Prasad Sharma revisionist filed a complaint against Vidya Sagar Singh and Nebu Lal for offence under Sections 192, 196, 418, 164, 163, 120, 504, 463, 500 and 465, I. P. C. on February 27 1981 on the allegation that Vidya Sagar Singh is Executive Engineer in Asthai Khand No. 2, Sarvjanik Nirman Vibhag, Bahraich and Nabu Lal is an Accountant in that Khand. Five tenders were invited for payment of Bahraich, Barabanki, Banda road between 32 Kms. and 36 Kms. by the Executive Engineer of the aforesaid Khand on November 3, 1980 the revisionist submitted tenders in time and they were accepted but the Executive Engineer and the Accountant did not give any information to the complainant about the same though he had been going to the office very often and making enquiry about the result of his tenders. The complainant gave an application on January 8, 1981 to the Executive Engineer to inform him about the result of his tenders. When no reply was received he gave another application January 24, 1981 by way of reminder. The office of the Executive Engineer sent reply to complainant by a registered letter which was received by him on January 31, 1981 whereby he was intimated that the sum of Rs. 1. 5,000 deposited by him by way of security in connection with the aforesaid tenders stands forfeited. This order of forfeiture has been passed by the Executive Engineer and the Accountant maliciously. The reasons assigned forfeiture of the security is that the complainant did not put in appearance to sign the agreement within one week of the acceptance of the tenders, hence these tenders were cancelled and security was forfeited. It was also made known to the complainant through the aforesaid letter that anoiher registered letter had been sent to the complainant by registered post on December 19, 1980 about acceptance of the tenders but no such notice was in fact sent by the opposite parties. This was done only to cause wrongful loss to the complain ant by misusing the office which the accused opposite parties are holding. Opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 entered into conspiracy. They manufactured evidence about sending notice and made incorrect entries about the same. Narain Sharma, son of the complainant, had filed a complaint against the predecessor-in-office of opposite party Vidya Sagar Singh and in order to take revenge opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 conspired to cause wrongful loss to the complainant and wrongfully forfeited his security. The complainant also made a complaint against Vidya Sagar Singh to the Government whereupon the matter had been entrusted to the Vigilance Department. On account of these incidents opposite party No. 2 was harbouring ill-will and threatened the complainant that he would not get any Theka in future unless he made payment like other Thekedars.

(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the accused-opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3. The record of the lower court had also been summoned and was perused.