LAWS(HPH)-1999-4-9

R.D. DHIMAN Vs. TILAK RAJ BATRA

Decided On April 09, 1999
R.D. Dhiman Appellant
V/S
Tilak Raj Batra Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is one of the accused in a private complaint filed by respondent No. 1, which is being tried by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palampur, District Kangra. On receipt of summons to face trial under Sections 193 and 465 I.P.C., the petitioner earlier filed criminal revision No. 115 of 1995 contending that he could not be criminally proceeded on the basis of complaint of respondent No. 1 without procuring sanction for his prosecution under Section 197 Cr.P.C. While disposing of the said criminal revision on 25.9.1996 the learned Single Judge held that since the petitioner had already presented himself before the trial magistrate he may take the aforesaid objection before the trial Magistrate, who was directed to deal with it before proceeding further with the complaint. Now, by the impugned order dated 29.1.1998 the trial Court has decided against the petitioner holding that there is no connection between the official duty of the accused and the offence alleged to have been committed by him under Sections 193 and 465 I.P.C.

(2.) SINCE respondent No. 1 has appeared in person, he was permitted to file written arguments and in response thereto learned counsel for the petitioner has also made written submissions.

(3.) NOW the question arises whether the offences alleged the petitioner have been committed by him by acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, the cognizance whereof cannot be taken except with the previous sanction as provided under Section 197 Cr.P.C. In answering this question reference to some of the judgments of the Supreme Court on Section 197 Cr.P.C. will be relevant. In Matajog Dobey v. H.C. Bhari, AIR 1956 SC 44, after referring to the judgments in Hori Ram Singh v. Emperor, AIR 1939 FC 43; H.T. Huntley v. Emperor, AIR 1944 FC 66; Albert West Meads v. The King, AIR 1948 PC 156; Shreekantiah Ramayya Munipalli v. State of Pepsu, AIR 1955 SC 309, the learned judges in para 19 have come to the conclusion that :-