NAHAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner has challenged the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagraon, dated 15th November, 1983, charging him under section 355 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that initially the charge was framed against the petitioner under section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code and the Magistrate could not take cognizance as no sanction of the competent authority for prosecuting the petitioner as required by section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was obtained. For this contention he relied upon an authority of this Court reported as 1982 (2) Chandigarh Law Reporter 664.

(3.) MR . Ujaggar Singh, learned counsel for the complainant has brought to my notice an authority of the Supreme Court reported as State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy and another, AIR 1981 S.C. 1417, wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the acquittal of the accused for the offence in which sanction of the State Government was not needed was not valid and it was valid only in respect of the offences for which sanction of the State Government was needed. In the aforesaid authority of the Supreme Court, the Sessions Judge convicted Hemareddy accused for the offences under section 467 read with section 114, Indian Penal Code, and section 193, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to various terms of imprisonment and fine. He also convicted his co-accused Pyatal Bhim akka for the offence under section 467, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced her to six months' rigorous imprisonment and. a fine of Rs. 200/- or in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. Both the accused filed appeals before the High Court against their convictions and sentences The High Court confirmed the conviction of Pyatal Bhimakka but reduced her sentence to one day's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fire of Rs. 200/- or in default, further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one week. The learned Judges of the High Court, however, acquitted Hemareddy alias Vemareddy and set aside the sentence awarded to him by the Sessions Judge on the ground that the complaint in the criminal case which ended in the conviction of both the accused in the Session Court, was filed by the private individual. On appeal by the State, the Supreme Court maintained the conviction and sentence of Pyatal Bhimakka under section 467, Indian Penal Code. It set aside the conviction and sentence of Hemareddy alias Vemareddy under section 193, Indian Penal Code, but maintained the conviction and sentence under section 467 read with section 114. Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/or in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court while convicting Hemareddy alias Vemareddy observed that "the complaint could have been taken on file only for an offence punishable under section 467 read with section 114, Indian Penal Code, so far as that accused is concerned. It would follow that no complaint (Sanction) by the Court for prosecuting Hemareddy alias Vemareddy for the offence under section 467 read with section 114, Indian Penal Code, is required, and he could be validly convicted for that offence on the complaint given by the private individual".