MOGILI CHINNA BALAIAH Vs. K SAMBA MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is filed against the order passed in CFR 3965 of 1996 of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Markapur dated 9-10-1996.

(2.) The complainant filed a complaint for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 109 IPC against the accused 1 to 9. The lower Court held that the petition is not maintainable either in law or fact as the defacto complainant did not obtain any permission to prosecute the accused A7 to A9 under Section 197 Cr.PC. Hence, the petition.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the State Government is not the appointing authority in respect of A7 to A9, A7 is a Sub-Registrar and A8 and A9 who are Clerks. A7 was appointed under Rule 4A of the A.P. Registration Subordinate Service Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Deputy Inspector General of Registration and Stamps is the appointing authority to the post of Sub-Registrar and as such no sanction is required under Section 197 to prosecute A7 who is a Sub-Registrar. A8 and A9 are clerks and the District Registrar is the appointing authority so, no sanction is required. In support of his contention he relied upon a judgment rendered in Nagraj v. State of Mysore, AIR 1964 SC 269. In this case it was held that the dismissal of Inspectors of ail grades vests in the Government. There are Inspectors of various grades. Inspectors of some grades were appointed by the Government but the dismissal of Inspectors of all grades is vested in the Government. The Inspector-General of Police can dismiss a Sub-Inspector who is a police officer below the grade of Assistant Superintendent. In those circumstances, it was held that no sanction of the State Government for the prosecution of the Sub-Inspector was necessary even if he had committed an offence while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. He also relied upon a judgment rendered in Lakshmansingh v. Naresh Kumar, AIR 1990 SC 1976. In this case the appellant was appointed as a public analyst under Section 8 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. It was held that he does not become an employee of the State Government. He is not a public servant removable only by the State Government. Therefore, it was held that the sanction for his prosecution is not necessary. He further relied upon a judgment rendered in Sakthivel v. Murugesa Sundara Pandiyan, 1993 (2) ALT (Crl.) 370. In this case the Madras High Court held that the Director General of Police was the appointing authority for the petitioners therefore, prior sanction was not necessary for filing complaint against the petitioner.