TH. ASHWANI SINGH Vs. JEET LAL GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IST Additional Sessions Judge, has referred this matter on a revision filed by Thakur Ashwani Singh, by passing the following order: The conclusion that can be drawn, is that the Ld. Magistrate has not recorded any reason to justify his conclusion, which is the basis of order impugned. The Ld. Magistrate has reached a finding that sanction was necessary, without application of mind, which has resulted in an illegality. The Ld. Magistrate should have left the question of sanction to be decided at trial or after concluding the trial, if he was of the view that the commission of an offence was revealed. The ld. Magistrate has on the other hand, cut short the matter, without going into details, or without knowing, what the respondents had to say in the matter. So I feel that the order impugned is based on an unsound footing and is not in conformity with law. Same is so not sustainable. That being so, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

(2.) THE only point which was raised before the learned Sessions Judge was as to whether the learned Magistrate is competent to take cognizance, without prior sanction of the competent authority.

(3.) SECTION 197 Cr.P.C has been interpreted by the Apex Court in Shreekantiah Ramayya Munipalli v. State of Bombay : 1955CriLJ857 , by observing as under: Now it is obvious that if Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is construed too narrowly, it can never be applied, for of course, it is no part of an official's duty to commit an offence and never can be. But it is not the duty we have to examine so much as the act, because an official act can be performed in the discharge of official duty as well as in dereliction of it. The sanction has content and its language must be given meaning.