JOGENDRA MOHAN PANDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate. The complainant-opposite party No.2 has not appeared in this Court.

(2.) The petitioners-one of them being a Forest Ranger and the other being a Forester who are deemed to be public servants within the meaning of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code as provided in section 78 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972, seek exercise of inherent jurisdiction by this Court for quashing, the criminal proceeding against them under sections 147, 447, 323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) The ground taken by Mr. Ramdas, appearing for the petitioners, is that sanction is necessary for their prosecution, as they have allegedly committed the offences while acting in the discharge of their official duties. The learned counsel for both the sides have, however, submitted at the time of hearing that the two petitioners are not such public servants who are not removable from their office save by or with the sanction of the Government. Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would apply to the case of a public servant removable from his office by the Government. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners with regard to want of sanction cannot, therefore, prevail. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the learned Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate bas improperly rejected an application of the petitioners to appear through their counsel under section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It would be noticed from the impugned order that without giving any reason therefor, the application has been rejected. This is highly improper. When an application is made under section 205, it should be allowed or rejected with reasons. Justice must not only be done, but must also appear 1O have been done. There should be no arbitrary exercise of judicial discretion. The learned Additional Government Advocate has fairly submitted, that, the two petitioners may be allowed to be represented as provided in section 205 and they shall appear in the court in person for the purpose of identification or for other purposes when the court requires their personal attendance. I would vacate the impugned order in this regard in the interest of justice and allow the application of the petitioners made under section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a direction that they shall appear personally in the court as and when called open so to do.