PHANINDRALAL Vs. ASHES KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is a spate of criminal prosecutions against public servants and if things continue in this manner and the protection under S. 197 Cr. P.C. is not granted, perhaps the day is not far when all functions of the State shall be at a standstill by interested persons desiring to stall the activities of the State performed through the public servants.

(2.) In the instant case the petitioner filed an application asking for lease of certain railway land and allegedly paid Rs. 410/- to the Railways for the said purpose. The opposite party is the Divisional Railway Manager, N. F. Railway, Lumding, an employee under the Ministry of Railways, Government of India in Class-I Service, appointed by the President of India. It is alleged that the railway authority did not lease out the land to the complainant in spite of repeated requests made by the petitioner-complainant. It is further alleged that on 25-4-83 the complainant voluntarily met the accused and requested him for grant of lease and the opposite party desired to peruse the file and documents at the disposal of the complainant. Strange was the request as the railway department had all the relevant papers at their disposal. It appears more true than not that the petitioner handed over his personal file to the accused. Be that as it may, let us assume that the accused had asked for the personal file of the complainant. It is alleged that the complainant handed over the file on the assurance by the accused that he would return the same to the petitioner. It is alleged that in spite of repeated demands, including pleader's notice, the accused did not return the file. The complainant alleged that the accused refused to return the file with a view to cause disappearance of evidence in respect of the anomalies regarding the procedure in leasing out lands by the railways. The complainant instituted a criminal case against the accused under S. 420 I.P.C. and obtained a search warrant. The records were brought before the Court. The records so produced from the office of the opposite party contained the file of the complainant. Learned Magistrate observed inter alia, "there is no subsequent allegation that any of the papers or documents in the file was missing". As such, it is evident that 'the file' handed over by the complainant and subsequently seized by virtue of the search warrant, was intact. However, these are matters touching the merits of the case. It appears from the findings reached by the learned Magistrate that on perusal of the file he reached the conclusion that no offence had been committed by the accused person as the records were intact. On that ground alone the learned Magistrate could have discharged the accused person.

(3.) However, the learned Magistrate also considered the question as to whether the accused could be prosecuted in absence of any sanction required under S. 197 of Cr. P.C. The protection u/s. 197 is granted to a person against whom materials for commission of offence are found but the alleged offence was committed by him "while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty". The three conditions precedent for invoking S. 197 Cr. P.C. are the following :