JAGJIT CHANDRA Vs. TH AVTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application seeking to revise the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Jammu, dated 28. 2. 1970 whereby he has set aside the order of discharge passed by the Sub-Registrar, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jammu and sent the cage back to him for rehearing; or in the alternative Under Section 561 A, Criminal P. C. , seeking the quashing of the original proceeding in the complaint filed by the complainant against the petitioner Under Section 504, R. P. C.

(2.) THE original complaint of the respondent states that the respondent complainant was a salesman in the wholesale Co-operative Limited, Jammu, Rehari Branch; that there was an accusation of shortage of goods entrust, ed to his care and he was directed to remit Ra. 3,040 to make up the loss. This sum was deposited by the respondent. But even afterwards he was asked through a notice to deposit Rs. 4,200 in the office of the accused petitioner by 12. 7. 1969. On that date he went to the office of the accused who turned up at 5-30 P. M. As soon as the complainant appeared before the accused with his objections, the accused tore the objections and used abusive language towards the complainant and said further "ma jawe Chor ajate Hain. " (Original script in urdu transliterateded.) The complainant restrained himself otherwise there would have been a breach of peace. Process was issued on this complaint by the trial Magistrate against the petitioner accused Under Section 504, R. P. C. When the accused appeared before the Sub-Registrar, Judicial Magistrate, ho made an application before him in which among other pleas he raised a plea that as he was an officer appointed by the Government, prosecution could not be launched against him without the sanction of the Government Under Section 197, Criminal P. C. This plea prevailed with the trial Magistrate who discharged the accused. A revision was preferred before the Sessions Judge, who set aside the order of discharge and sent the ease back for trial. The petitioner therefore now prays for the reversal of the order of the Sessions Judge or in the alternative for quashing the entire proceedings against him as no offence is disclosed from the allegations in the complaint against him.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Two points arise for consideration in the case. Firstly whether under circumstances of this case, sanction of the Government to prosecute the petitioner was necessary before the launching the prosecution and secondly whether the case is otherwise fit in which criminal proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed. I shall take up both these points separately.