MANGHARAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question which calls for determination in this revision application is whether the order of the learned Magistrate in dropping proceedings against opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 in the complaint filed by the petitioner against them and ten other persons out of whom Nos. 3 to 10 are municipal employees and Nos. 11 and 12 are police constables is legally justified. Opposite party No. 2 Shri T.N. Chaturvedi is the Administrator, Municipal Council, Ajmer and opposite party No. 3 Shri Prayagraj Mathur is the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Ajmer. The learned Magistrate has dropped proceedings against them on the ground that prior sanction of the State Government as required by sec. 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was necessary for their prosecution.

(2.) In the complaint which was filed on 2nd June, 1961, it was alleged that the complainant was the owner of a shop known as Kashmir Confectionery Mart AMC No. X/412, outside Madar Gate, Ajmer. Outside the shop there was a chabutri measuring 3 x 10. Besides there was a land measuring 10x 6 which the complainant had taken on rent from the Municipal Council. It was alleged that the complainant had erected a wooden cabin on the chabutri and the land taken on rent and the cabin along with its fittings had cost him Rs. 5000/ -. It was stated that on 18th March, 1961, opposite party No. 2 came to his shop and asked him to push it back by 3 which the complainant did. On 18th April, 1961, it is said that opposite party No. 2 sent members of his staff who trespassed into the shop of the complainant which was then closed, went on its roof and, after cutting the corrugated iron sheets took them away. When the complainant came to know of it he came his shop and enquired from the gangmen about their authority to remove the corrugated iron sheets, upon which they told him that they had been sent under the order of the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3, though no such orders were shown to him. Again on 3rd May, 1961, at about 11 A.M. opposite parties Nos. 4 to 12 along with 15 other gangmen came to the complainants shop with a municipal truck, trespassed into the shop, refused to quit it when the complainant asked them to do so and completely dismantled it. On being asked they told the complainant that they had been sent to demolish the shop by the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3. Opposite parties Nos. 4 to 12 after dismantling the shop committed theft and took away all the goods, account and cash; in all worth about Rs. 20,000/ -. A list of the stolen property was annexed with the complaint. It is said that all the stolen goods of the shop of the complainant were handed over to opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 in the Municipal Office which have since then been retained by them knowing and having reason to believe that it was stolen property. It was alleged that opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 assisted and abetted the commission of the offences by the other accused persons. In the end it was stated that as a result of the above illegal acts of the accused persons the complainant had been defamed and had lost his prestige in the eyes of the traders and general community. According to the complainant the aforesaid acts of the opposite parties amounted to offences punishable under sec. 147,427,451,380, 411 and 50 of the Indian Penal Code read with sec. 34/109 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Before taking any proceedings on the complaint, the learned Magistrate himself raised an objection regarding the prosecution of opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 without the previous sanction of the State Government and called upon the complainants counsel to satisfy him on that question. Arguments were heard on 10th June, 1961 and on 14th June, 1961 he passed the order which is the subject matter of this revision. The learned Magistrate says in this order: