KANWAR SINGH Vs. SAT PARKASH SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner filed a complaint against the respondents in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak under sections 500, 504, 506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that on 12th March, 1981, he in his capacity as Cashier along with Samant Singh Secretary of the Kharkhara Janata Co-operative Labour and Construction Society Ltd. approached Sat Parkash Sharma. Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rohtak (respondent No. 1) for getting the credit limit of the society raised from Rs. 13000/- to Rs. 25000/-. His request was not acceded to and respondent No. 1 also demanded illegal gratification and told the petitioner that the work cannot be done because no "Sewa Pani" (bribe) had been made. The petitioner told the respondent that he was against giving such bribe. On this, respondent No. 1 became furious and gave filthy abuses to the petitioner. He also asked the petitioner to get out from the office. On protest by the petitioner against such misbehaviour. Virender Kumar Sharma, Clerk (respondent No. 2) was called by respondent No. 1 and then both the respondents gave slaps and pushes to the petitioner. It is alleged that the occurrence was witnesses by Rajib. The petitioner was also threatened that he would be killed in case he comes to the office again.

(2.) THE Judicial Magistrate, after going through the preliminary evidence, summoned the respondents and vide his order dated 4the December, 1981, he dismissed the application of the respondents for rejecting the complaint of the petitioner on the ground of non-compliance of the provisions of section 197, Criminal Procedure Code.

(3.) IN my view, no sanction under section 197, Criminal Procedure Code, was required before filing the present complaint. No doubt, the respondents are public servants and a public servant cannot be prosecuted if anything is done in the discharge of his official duties. Sanction is necessary only in those cases where a public servant does certain act honestly and faithfully in the discharge of his official duties, but a public servant who demands bribe during the course of his official duties and gives abuses as is alleged in the complaint cannot be said to have acted in the discharge of his official duties. There is no quarrel about the principle of law as laid down in the rulings relied upon by the learned Additional Sessions Judge but the facts of the present case are distinguishable. There must be a reasonable connection between the act complained of and the discharge of official duty and the act must fall within the scope and range of official duties of the public servant concerned. In Bhagwan Prasad Srivastava v. N.P. Mishra, AIR 1970 S.C. 1661, it who observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court as under :-