SURJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS a revision petition against the order dated 19th March, 1983, of the judicial Magistrate First Class, Batala, by which he framed a charge under section 420 read with section 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. Mr. Dharam Vir Sehgal Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners, has taken me through the order under challenge. The learned Magistrate agreed with the defence submission that the ingredients of cheating were not made out in the case. He also came to the finding that in case the ingredients of cheating were not made to there would be no question of the commission of an offence under section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE other contention raised by the defence was that as far as two petitioners, namely, Shiv Nath Chaudhry and Harman Singh were concerned they were gazetted officers and that the offence alleged to have been committed by them was in the course of their official duties. Therefore, the Magistrate could not take cognizance of the offence unless sanction under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was obtained. The learned Magistrate came to a clear finding that the prosecution had not been able to prove that they had obtained the sanction for the prosecution. In spite of that the learned Magistrate proceeded to from charge and pass the order under challenge. In view of the above findings of the learned Magistrate, I do not think that this order dated 19th March, 1983, can be sustained. Consequently I allow this revision petition and set aside the impugned order. Petition allowed.