MOHINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. filed by accused-petitioner, seeking quashment of the order dated 7-2-2001, passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kharar and the order dated 28-2-2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar, dismissing the revision petition of the petitioner.

(2.) The facts which are relevant for the decision of the present petition are that in a civil suit decided by Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Kharar, vide judgment dated 24-10-1994, copy Annexure P-1, the trial Court had directed the SHO, PS Mohali, to register a case and conduct investigation in accordance with law. This was with regard to the transfer of a plot. It was further directed that the criminal case was to be registered against Joginder Kaur, attesting witness of the Will propounded by Joginder Kaur and all concerned officials of the Estate Officer, Urban Estate, Mohali, at the relevant time, by registering a case under Sections 167, 418, 419, 420, 467, 471, 474, 120-B, IPC. In pursuance of the said direction of the Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Kharar, FIR No. 120 dated 12-12-1994 was registered in PS Mohali, for the aforesaid offences. The present petitioner, Mohinder Singh, was working as Assistant Estate Officer at the relevant time. In view of the order passed by the civil Court, the FIR was registered against him as well. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had retired from service on 30-6-1983. Since the petitioner was a public servant at the relevant time when the offence was alleged to have been committed, the petitioner filed an application under Section 197, Cr.P.C., that the petitioner at the relevant time was Assistant Estate Officer and was thus a public servant, who was not removable from his office, save by or with the sanction of the State Government and as such he could not be prosecuted without obtaining sanction from the State Government. However, the said application of the petitioner was dismissed by the trial Court, vide order dated 7-2-2001,copy Annexure-P-4. Aggrieved against this order of the learned Magistrate,the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Sessions Court and the same was also dismissed by the Additioinal Sessions Judge, Ropar, on 28-2-2001. Aggrieved against these orders of the Courts below, the petitioner filed the present petition in this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the accused- petitioner submitted before me that the petitioner was a public servant and had acted in the discharge of his official duties and as such sanction was required, even if he had retired from service. Reliance has been placed on the law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case reported as State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Budhikota Subharao, (1993) 2 Rec Cri R 482.