M CHANNABASAPPA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two Petitions are directed against the common order dated 18-7-1989 in Criminal Revision Application No.47 of 1989 and Criminal Revision Application No.59 of 1989 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Satara. Heard both the sides.

(2.) THE facts necessary for the disposal of these two Petitions are as follows : THE Petitioner was at the relevant time working as a Sub-Divisional Officer and he was appointed as a Presiding Officer in one of the polling booths for the Assembly Elections in 1985. In particular, the Petitioner was appointed as a Presiding Officer at Polling Booth No.265, Patan Assembly Constituency, Satara. THE election was held on 2-3-1985 and it is alleged that due to negligence and omission of the Petitioner 50 bogus votes were cast in the election and therefore, it is alleged that the Petitioner has committed an offence under Section 134(1)(3) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") and also an offence under Section 171(F) of the Indian Penal Code. THE Government has sanctioned the prosecution of the Petitioner by Order dated 10-6-1987. After the filing of the chargesheet the learned Magistrate has issued process against all the accused including the Petitioner. THE Petitioner filed an application before the learned Magistrate, Patan at Exh.18 praying for an order of discharge. THE only ground taken in t he application was that the chargesheet was filed beyond the period of limitation and hence it is not maintainable and hence, the accused be discharged. After hearing both the sides, the learned Magistrate passed an order dated 17-2-1989 holding that the chargesheet is barred by limitation. However, the learned Magistrate felt that having regard to the seriousness of the offence this is a fit case where he should condone the delay in filing the chargesheet and accordingly exercised power under Section 473 of the Code of Criminal procedure and condoned the delay in filing the chargesheet and rejected the application Exh.18. In the same case, the accused had filed one more application Exh.14 stating that the chargesheet for the offence under Section 171(F) is not maintainable for want of sanction by the Government. After hearing both the sides, the learned Magistrate held that the chargesheet is bad for want of sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, so far as the offence under Section 171(F) is concerned. Accordingly, the application came to be allowed.

(3.) THERE is no dispute that the Petitioner is an officer removable by the State Government. The alleged offence is one done by the Petitioner while discharging his duties as a Presiding Officer in an election; hence sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a condition precedent for filing the cahrgesheet. In fact, the prosecution did obtain the sanction of the Government and produced in this case. The sanction order is at page 16 in the paper book of Criminal Application No.2147 of 1989. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the sanction order reads as follows : " And whereas, it appears to Government of Maharashtra that during the day of poll i.e. on 2.5.1985 at the aforesaid place, the accused persons, has committed offences (hereinafter referred to as in the said offences) punishable under section 134 of the Representation of Peoples' Act, 1951. And whereas, the Government of Maharashtra having fully examined the material before it and considering all facts and circumstances disclosed therein, is satisfied that there is a prima facie case made out against the said accused person and that it is necessary in the interest of justice that accused person should be prosecuted in the court of competent jurisdiction for the said offence. And whereas, in accordance with the provisions of clause (4) of Sub-section (1) of the Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974) before a Court take a cognizance of the said offences, it is necessary for the State Government to accord sanction to the prosecution against the accused person. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (2 of 1974), the Government of Maharashtra hereby accords sanction to the prosecution against the accused person for the said offences by a Court of competent jurisdiction." In paragraph 2, the Government has recorded a finding that the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 134 of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951. In next paragraph it is mentioned that the government is prima facie satisfied about the commission of the said offence. In the next paragraph it is mentioned that the government has felt it necessary to accord sanction to prosecute the accused for the said offence. Then in the 5th paragraph, the Government has accorded sanction to prosecute the accused for the said offence. THEREfore, we see that in unmistakable terms, the sanction has been accorded only for an offence under Section 134 of the said Act. THERE is not even a whisper much less a specific mention of an offence under Section 171-F of the Indian Penal Code or any other offence.