JOHN F GODINHO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed to revise the order dated 10th November 1970 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge at Panaji in Sessions Case No. 22 of 1969 on his file. The revision petitioner was committed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Panaji to the Court of Sessions Judge at Panaji to take his trial for the offences punishable under Ss.409, 468 and 477-A of I.P.C. The case against the revision petitioner as per the order under revision is that he committed the offences punishable under Sections 409, 468 and 477-A of the I.P.C. in his capacity as Foreman Supervisor of the Agriculture Department. By the order under revision the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the Director of Agriculture could appoint and dismiss from service the revision petitioner without the sanction of the Government, that permission of the Government to prosecute the revision petitioner was not necessary and that Section 197 Cr. P.C. was not applicable to the case. The learned advocate appearing for the revision petitioner arguing before me on the following points contends that the order under revision is fit to be set aside :-

(2.) There is absolutely no force in the second point argued on behalf of the revision petitioner because the Additional Sessions Judge considered the point relating to the sanction mentioned in Section 197 Criminal P.C. assuming that the revision petitioner had acted in discharge of his official duties.

(3.) Even if the Director of Agriculture acts in exercise of the powers delegated to him by the Government in appointing and dismissing an officer of the cadre of the revision petitioner it cannot be said that Section 197 Criminal P.C. is applicable to this case because once the Government delegates its powers the authority which actually removes the public servant from office is not the Government but is the authority to whom the power is delegated vide Sakuntala Bai V/s. Venkatakrishna Reddi , 1952 AIR(Mad) 667 In the notification referred to by the revision petitioner there cannot and there need not be any reference to the sanction mentioned in Section 197 Criminal P.C. In view of the powers given to the Director of Agriculture by that notification, the Court will have to decide the question relating to the sanction mentioned in Section 197 Criminal P.C. There is no force in points 3 and 4 argued on behalf of the revision petitioner.