L.D. KATARIA Vs. K.N. KUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Sections 439 and 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for revision of the order dated the 4th of August, 1970, of Shri G.S. Bhatti, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class. Chandigarh, dismissing the application of the Petitioner wherein a prayer had been made that cognizance of the offence under Sections 469 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code which were the subject -matter of a complaint dated the 3rd of March, 1970, presented by the Respondent to the learned Magistrate against the Petitioner, should not be taken for the reason that no sanction as envisaged by Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been accorded by the Central Government.

(2.) THE facts leading to the petition are not in dispute and may be shortly stated. The Petitioner is a member of the Indian Administrative Service, earmarked to serve the Haryana State. From the 16th of September, 1968, to the 1st of April, 1970, he held the office of the Managing Director of the Haryana Agro -Industries Corporation (Private) Limited ( hereinafter referred to as the Corporation), which is a "Government Corporation" as defined in Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956. Shri K.N. Kutty, Respondent held the post of the Secretary of the Corporation from the 19th of October, 1967, to the 29th of May, 1969, when his services were terminated on account of the abolition of his post. He challenged the order of the termination of his services in a civil suit which is still pending. It was thereafter that the complaint above mentioned was filed by the Respondent alleging that the Petitioner had recorded confidential remarks with regard to the work and conduct of the Respondent on or about the 30th of May, 1969, when the Respondent was given a good chit, but that more than 5 months later, i.e., on the 12th of November, 1969, another confidential report was substituted by the Petitioner for those remarks, the report being derogatory to the Respondent. This report, according to the Respondent, was circulated by the Petitioner! to various Corporations so that the Respondent had suffered in reputation.

(3.) THE learned Magistrate held in the impugned order that the offences complained of could not be said to have any reasonable connection with the discharge by the Petitioner of his official duties so that the same could not be said to "have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty." In this view of the matter he dismissed the application presented by the Petitioner although he was further of the opinion that the Petitioner while holding the office of the Managing Director of the Corporation was a person employed in connection with the affairs of the Haryana State.