DEVENDRA SINGH RAI Vs. KHOKAN ROHIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the accused's petition under Section 482 of the Code for quashing the trial Magistrate's order dated 19 -12 -1981 for proceedings against him in accordance with Section 204 of the Code, after taking cognizance of the offences against him under sections 219 and 220 of the Penal Code.

(2.) THE present applicant -accused is a Sub Divisional Officer of the Sub -Division Chhindwara, his appointing authority being the State Government. In addition to his present post, he is also holding the charge as Administrator Municipal Council, Chhindwara. Since the non -applicant Khokan Rohit, who was in -charge of the Water Works of the Municipality, was stated to have prepared false muster rolls regarding the labourers employed by him and since, consequently, he was intending to sabotage the water supply to the town Chhindwara on or about, 18 -1 -1981, the applicant, as the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, on the strength of information, received from certain persons, started proceedings against the non -applicant under sections 107 and 116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also station 151 ibid. The applicant S.D.O. to abort the non -applicant's any attempts to sabotage the water supply, got him produced - before himself under non -bailable warrant and immediately released him on personal bond on Sunday the 18th Jan., 1981, on his undertaking that he would do nothing to sabotage the water -supply to the town. Later on, proceedings against him were dropped on 4 -8 -1981. There being some bona fide mistakes in the order -sheets, the S.D.O. made the necessary corrections and addition in the order -sheets to keep the record clean. The non -applicant subsequently, filed a private complaint against the present applicant viz. the S.D.O. D.S. Rai under sections 219 and 220 of the I.P.C.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the applicant accused bas vehemeritly argued that the applicant -accused was a public -servant and that, all his acts had been done in discharge of his official duties and as such, without the previous sanction of the State Government, no cognizance of any offences could be taken against him by any Court. It is stated in this connection that all his acts regarding which the non -applicant has the grievance were closely related solely to the discharge of his official duties as S.D.O. and S.D.M. and there were not mala fides or corruption on his part in proceedings against the non -applicant under the particular provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure; and, therefore, the learned trial Magistrate was not competent to proceed against him any further, in the private complaint -case, without the State Government's prior sanction.