NARMADESHWAR SHARMA Vs. SARJU CHANDRA PODDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application on behalf of the two petitioners for Quashing an order, dated the 25th April. 1972, passed by the sub-divisional Magistrate, Hazaribagh taking cognizance under Sections 500 323 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code against them.

(2.) AT the relevant time petitioner No. 1 was a Sub-Inspector and petitioner No. 2 an Assistant .Sub-Inspector of police posted at Bishungarh police station in the district of Hazaribagh, and the complain- ant-opposite party was a Development Officer of the Life Insurance Corporation of India at Gomia in the district of Hazaribagh. On the 1st April, 1972. the opposite party filed a petition of complaint before the Sub-divisional Magistrate. Hazaribagh, alleging, inter alia that on the 30th March. 1972 he was going from Gomia to Hazaribaigh on a scooter at about 8.30 a. m. When the scooter reached Bishiinrarh More it was stopped at the signal of a police constable petitioner No. 1 demanded tax token owner's book etc from the complainant. The complainant wanted 3-4 days time to produce the same but the petitioners insisted on their immediate production. The complainant pointed out to the petitioners that under the Motor Vehicles Act, he was at liberty to produce the relevant papers within a reasonable time. On hearing this petitioner No. 1 got very much annoyed and said "SALA MADARCHOD KANUN SHIKHATA HAI GAND MEN BANS DHAS DENGE". Petitioner No. 2 also said "HARAMJADA KAGAJ DIKHAO NAHI TO MAR JUTE KE THIK KAR DENGE". According to the complaint the complainant was taken aback and protested at the behaviour of and expressions used by the petitioners Petitioner No. 2. thereafter gave two "blows to the complainant saving "SALE AGAR JALD JANA CHAHTE HO TO EK SAWTAKI NIKALO. DO AUR JAO AUR NAHI TO EK INCH GHASKANE NAHI 'DENGE", and ordered two constables to confine the complainant and not allow him to move in any direction. Shree S.N. Verma. Branch Manager of the Life Insurance Corporation at Hazaribagh was informed, who approached the Superintendent of Police. Hazaribagh and narrated to him the incident. The Superintendent directed the petitioners to release the vehicle on "P. R. BOND" at once. There were several persons known to the com-plainant present at the scene of occurrence and they also saw the aforesaid acts of the petitioners. According to the complainant the petitioners, by their aforesaid acts, defamed him and damaged his re-putation.

(3.) MR. Prem Shanker Daval learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has urged three points in support of the application. Firstly, he has submitted that the petitioners were public servants and, in absence of sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they could not be prosecuted for the charges levelled against them and as there was no sanction in the present case, the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences complained of His second contention is that the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code in view of the provisions of Section 198B of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the "Code"), which prescribes the procedure for prosecution for defamation against public servants. According to learned Counsel for the petitioners the complainant, who is a Development Officer of the Life Insurance Corporation is a 'public servant' and as such the complaint in writing should have been made by the public prosecutor with the previous sanction of the Government concerned. Thirdly, learned Counsel has urged that on the allegations made in the complaint petition taken as a whole no offence under Section 500 or 323 or 342 of the Indian Penal Code was made out and as such the Sub-divisional Magistrate should not have summoned the petitioners.