LAWS(BOM)-1998-11-136

SADASHIV ANANDRAO GHADGE Vs. SAMPAT JOTIRAM GODSE

Decided On November 24, 1998
SADASHIV ANANDRAO GHADGE Appellant
V/S
SAMPAT JOTIRAM GODSE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is filed by the petitioners to set aside the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Satara in Criminal Revision Application No. 66/87. The short facts relevant to the purpose of disposal of the case are as under.

(2.) THE first petitioner is a Talathi and the second petitioner is a Circle Officer. A complaint has been filed by the respondent No. 1 against them before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Waduj in Regular Criminal Complaint No. 142/86 that the petitioners have committed an offence under sections 167, 464, 466, 468, 420, 194 read with section 34 of the I. P. C. , while discharging their duties. It is alleged that, while making the entries in the Revenue record, they played defraud. Firstly, the said complaint was dismissed under section 203 Cr. P. C. , on prima facie opinion formed by the Magistrate that no sufficient ground was made out to proceed with the proceedings. That order has been challenged at the instance of the first respondent before the Additional Sessions Judge, Satara. On an elaborate order Addl. Sessions Judge, Satara came to a conclusion that there is a prima facie case made out and the dismissal order of the Magistrate was set aside. It is in these circumstances, the applicant approached this Court.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Sessions Court ought not to have set aside the order of the Magistrate as the complaint is not maintainable for want of sanction envisaged under section 197 of the Cr. P. C. She further submits that being a Government Servant, before initiating the prosecution against them, sanction under section 197 of Cr. P. C. , was mandatory, and it was obtained in this case. While examining this contention, in order to bring the case under section 197, the accused must establish that the offence alleged has been committed in the discharge of the official duty. In other words the act or omissions must have been committed by the accused during the discharge of their official duty and the public servants must be those who are removable by the Government.