RAM BABU JAKHENIYA Vs. PURSHOTTAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the four petitions are arising out of one case and having identical question of law, hence, with the consent of the parties they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. During the course of arguments there appears no dispute between the parties on the following relevant factual aspects:-

(2.) DURING the course of arguments the learned counsel for all the four petitioners have drawn the attention of the Court on the averments of the respondent mentioned at Paras 1 and 2 in the complaint that the petitioners are public servants under Section 21 of the IPC and the disputed act has been done by them in discharge of duties of their respective posts on which they are posted. In support, they have drawn the attention of the Court on the order passed by another Bench of this Court in Civil Revision No. 159/94 at Para 11 reported as banarsi Das and another Vs. Ram Krishna and others, AIR 1995 MP 147 and has submitted that as ordered by this Court, the petitioners were removing the encroachments from the streets of Gwalior and they were discharging their official duties. They have further drawn the attention of the Court on the following judgments:- (1) Rakesh Kumar Mishra Vs. State of Bihar, (2006) 1 SCC 557, (2) Sankaran Moitra Vs. Sadhana Das and another, (2006) 4 SCC 584, (3) Raghav Chandra Vs. Tarvinder Kaur, 2003 (1) M. P. H. T. 151, and have submitted that without taking sanction as provided under Section 197 of Cr. PC no cognizance can be taken against them.

(3.) IT is also contended on behalf of the petitioners that in aforementioned Revision Petition No. 151/03 the petitioners were not heard while no order could be passed against them without hearing as provided under section 401 (2) of Cr. PC. The petitioners have been prejudiced on the ground that initially the order of the trial Court was in their favour but subsequently the order dated 17-11-03 has been passed against them without hearing.