STATE OF BIHAR Vs. RANJEET KUMAR CHATTERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), at the instance of the two petitioners is directed against the order dated 22-5-92, passed by Sri Satya Prakash Judicial Magistrate, Pakur, in P.C.R. Case No. 173/91/T.R. Case No. 362/92, whereby cognizance of the alleged offences has been taken under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code and the accused, the petitioners herein, have been summoned to stand their trial.

(2.) According to the allegations in the petition of complaint, the sole opposite party herein (the complainant) is the owner of a Petrol Station known as Pakam Service Station at Pakaur who had purchased Mobil oil from the depot of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, Mithapur, Patna, on 30-9-91, valued at Rs. 1,90,001.00. The same was loaded over a truck belonging to one Niranjan Pandey (described in the petition of complaint as P.W. 1, for transportation to Pakaur. One Naresh Raut (described in the petition of complaint as P.W. 2), an employee of the opposite party (complainant), were also in the truck. According to the further allegations, the truck had on 1-10-91 reached Dumka-Deoghar road. They had parked the truck by the wayside, and Naresh Raut went to attend to the call of nature and, in the meantime, the petitioners herein (accused-persons) had reached there, checked the vehicle on road, and demanded the cash memo and road permit which were produced before them but the petitioners refused to accept the same on the plea that the same did not bear the signature of the issuing authority. This was followed by a demand of illegal gratification of Rs. 10,000.00 failing which the truck will not be allowed to proceed the Pakaur. The occupants of the truck on the highway were unable to satisfy the illegal demand. Therefore, the truck, at the behest of the petitioners, was taken to the office of the commercial taxes at B. Deoghar. The Opposite party met the petitioners at B. Deoghar who again demanded a sum of Rs. 10,000.00 as illegal gratification to release the truck. According to the further allegations, the opposite party refused to pay illegal gratification because the taxes were paid and road permit had also been obtained. Further allegation is that on refusal to pay the illegal gratification, the accused-persons imposed fine whimsically on the Mobil oil. On 10-10-91, opposite party had filed an application for obtaining the certified copy of the order and was waiting for the same, but the same had not been supplied to him. Hence, the delay in filing the petition of complaint which was filed on 28-10-91. 2.1 The petition of complaint was registered as P.C.R. case No. 173 of 1991 Ranjeet Kumar Chatterjee v. S.N. Jha and Anr. A copy of the same is marked as Annexure-2 to the complaint petition. It appears that the learned Magistrate had conducted an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code. On a consideration of the materials on record, he passed the impugned order of cognizance in the aforesaid manner, and summoned the petitioners herein to stand their trial.

(3.) While assailing the validity of the impugned order of cognizance, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that no case under Section 384, I.P.C. is made out against the petitioners. The ingredients of the penal section are not prima fade satisfied. She next submitted that the complaint petition suffers from unexplained delay, and is also a counter blast to the lawful actions of the petitioners. She also submitted that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as alleged in the petition of complaint followed by the lawful proceedings taken by the petitioners against the opposite party, prior sanction for their prosecution is imperative in terms of Section 197 of the Code. The same has not been obtained in the present case and, therefore, the prosecution should not be allowed to continue. Both the petitioners were commercial taxes officers, & posted as such at B. Deoghar, at the relevant point of time.