PRABHAKAR VYANKATESH SANGWAI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE is taken up for final hearing with consent of parties. Heard Shri Dharmadhikari and Shri Gordey, learned Counsel for the applicants and Shri Thakare, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State. All these four criminal applications involve common questions of law and facts and take an exception to the order dated 23-11-1998 passed by the learned chief Judicial Magistrate rejecting the discharge applications of the applicants under section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure for want of sanction to prosecute the applicants and, therefore, all are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) BRIEF facts are as under: applicant Prabhakar Sangwai is working as a Senior Clerk in the office of Employees State Insurance Scheme, Amravati. Applicant Uttam Ingle is working as a Peon in the Department of Medical and Health Services of Government of Maharashtra and at the relevant time was working as officiating junior/senior Clerk in the office of the said Department at Amravati. Applicant Manohar Ingale was working as a Junior Clerk in the State Employees insurance Scheme at Amravati at the relevant time and applicant Ramesh jaiswal is working as a Junior Clerk in the Treasury Office situated at Amravati. The applicants have been criminally prosecuted for the offences punishable under sections 468, 471 and 420 of Indian Penal Code on the basis of first information report lodged on 13-8-1991 by Ranjit Singh Narayan Singh sayar, Incharge Insurance Medical Officer, on the allegations that the applicants had prepared the bogus bills to the tune of Rs. 1,65,334/- on 5-5-1989, 6-7-1989 and 6-7-1991 and submitted the same to the Treasury, obtained bank draft and encashed amount of the draft and committed the offence of forgery and cheating. The charge-sheet against all the applicants was filed in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati. Thereafter the applicants had filed applications for discharge on the ground that all the applicants/accused are public servants and they are not rem ovable except with the previous sanction of the State Government and, therefore, sanction to prosecute under section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure was necessary. These applications for discharge were rejected by the learned chief Judicial Magistrate on 23-11-1998. It is this order that is under challenge in all these applications.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the applicants contended that the impugned order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is not sustainable in law. The act complained of was done by the applicants in the discharge of their official duties without which they could not have prepared the bills and could not have submitted the same to the Treasury and ultimately whatever was done by them could be taken as has been done in discharge of their official duties or purporting to have been done in discharge of their official duties.