RAM EKBAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quahsing the entire criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner and also the order, dated 4-3-1987 whereby and where under cognizance of the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner which was then pending in the court of Shri B. Singh, Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khunti, in the District of Ranchi.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the present application is that the petitioner who was a gazetted Government servant working as Block Development Officer, Arki, district Ranchi is alleged to have received a cow under I.R.D.P. Scheme in the name of the complainant who was driver under the same Block and under the same officer. The said cow was received in the name of complainant but was not handed over to him and it was in possession of the petitioner. The petitioner did not hand over that cow to the complainant in spite of request for the same and thereafter he filed a complaint petition before the Pramukh, Gram Panchayat Samittee, Arki on 29-7-1986 alleging that in all the relevant papers his signature was obtained for that cow but it was not handed over to him and thus the petitioner had fraudulently committed forgery and cheating. This complaint petition ultimately was received in the Arki Police Station and the Officer-in-Charge registered a case under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and submitted charge-sheet against him after investigation as a result of which cognizance was taken by the Magistrate which is being challenged in this application.

(3.) Mr. R.K. Prasad, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has taken first objection that the petitioner in the capacity of Block Development Officer was working in that capacity and in discharge of his official duties he had performed his duty in the I.R.D.P, Scheme in official capacity or purporting to have acted in his official capacity and as such sanction of the appropriate Government in this case the State Government was necessary for his criminal prosecution as required under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.