MAHADEB MUKHERJEE Vs. JAGANNATH PRASAD SINHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application in revision, is directed against an order of the learned Deputy Commissioner of Manbhum, dated the 20th of February 1951 by which order the learned Deputy Commissioner dismissed a petition of complaint, which had been filed by the present petitioner against the Subdivisional Magistrate of Purulia, on the ground that no cognizance could be taken of the offence except with the previous sanction of the State Government. The principal question for consideration and decision on the present petition is whether the courts below were right in holding that the previous sanction of the State Government was necessary under the provisions of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, before cognizance could be taken on the petition of complaint filed by the petitioner.

(2.) The short facts out of which the present petition arises are these. On the 31st October 1950 one Satya Kinker Banerji, a Mukhtear, filed a petition in the court of the Subdivisional Magistrate of Purulia in which he alleged that an order had been passed by the Magistrate on a previous application of his for the irrigation of his paddy lands from certain private tanks in village Nadiha, police station Para. Satya Kinker Banerji said in his application that he was in great difficulties and the paddy crops would be destroyed if he were not allowed to take water from certain tanks in the village. One of the tanks in question was called Bhubirsair. The petitioner before me is another mukhtear practising in the courts at Purulia. It appears that at the time when the aforesaid application of Satya Kinker Banerji was moved, the present petitioner was present in court. He was a co-sharer owner of the said tank. The learned Subdivisional Magistrate asked the petitioner to allow Satya Kinker Banerji to irrigate his paddy crop from the said tank. There was some discussion or conversation between the present petitioner and the Subdivisional Magistrate about the matter. Apparently, there is a divergence of opinion as to what transpired at the discussion or conversation. As the courts below did not consider the petition of complaint on merits and gave no finding as to what transpired at the discussion or conversation, I am not in a position to express any opinion on that matter. The petition of complaint was dismissed on a legal ground only, and I shall confine myself to that "legal ground. The allegation of the petitioner was that the Subdivisional Magistrate asked the petitioner to give his permission in writing so that Satya Kinker Banerji might irrigate his paddy crop from the tank in question. The petitioner said that he could not do so without consulting his co-sharers. On this, it is said, the learned Subdivisional Magistrate became furious, and in the presence of several persons threatened the petitioner in the following words :

(3.) Mr. Basanta Chandra Ghose, appearing for the petitioner, has contended that the courts below were wrong in holding that the previous sanction of the State Government was necessary before cognizance could be taken of the offences alleged by the petitioner against the Subdivisional Magistrate of Purulia. Mr. K. P. Verma, appearing for the State of Bihar, has contended that the Courts below were right in their view of the provisions of Section 197, Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, so far as it is relevant for our purpose, is in these terms: