PARESH CHANDRA KOJI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revisional application is directed against the order dated November 26, 1992 passed in Special Court Case No. 5 of 1992 by the Judge, First Special Court, Birbhum at Suri.

(2.) On the basis of a complaint lodged by the Chief Medical Officer of Health, Birbhum, on November 11, 1987 with the officer-in-Charge of Suri Police Station, Suri P.S. Case No. 15 dated 11-11-87 was started under Sections 467, 468, 471, 120B 477A, 420 of the Indian Penal Code. In the said complaint it was alleged that in course of an audit conducted by the officers of A.G., West Bengal from March 11, 1987 to April 13, 1987, it was detected that a huge amount of government money to the tune of Rs. 4.94 lacs had been drawn fraudulently during the period from December 1, 1982 to July 31, 1985. In the said complaint, it was suspected that the officers and staff of the Department of Health and Family Welfare as well as Birbhum Treasury were involved in a conspiracy to defalcate the said government money. The petitioners are from Birbhum Treasury. The P.S. Case referred to above corresponds to G.R. Case No. 663 of 1987 in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Suri. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted on 22 October, 1990 under Sections 467, 468, 471, 477A, 409, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code. In the said charge-sheet, for want of a sanction the present petitioners were not sent up and the ld. Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Suri by order dated October 22, 1990 dischaged the present petitioners. But long after the said discharge, the Special Court by the imugned order dated 26-11-92 passed in Special Court Case No. 5 of 1992 which arose out of the said G.R. Case No. 663 of 1987 took cognizance of the offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioners and issued process.

(3.) Challenging the impugned order, it has been urged by Mr. Balai Roy with Mr. B. P. Ghosh appearing for the petitioners that the cognizance taken against the petitioners is illegal and bad in law by reason of the fact that the sanction for prosecution as required under Section 197, Cr.P.C. was not given by the concerned authority and as such, the proceeding pending before the Special Court as against the present petitioners should be quashed. On the question of necessity of sanction, two Supreme Court decisions reported in AIR 1955 SC 309 : (1955 Cri LJ 865), Amrik Singh v. State of Pepsu and AIR 1973 SC 2591 : (1973 Cri LJ 1795), Pukhraj v. State of Rajasthan were cited on behalf of the petitioners.