LADURAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision by Laduram and Ridhkaran against whom charges Under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code have been trained by the learned First Class Magistrate, Churu.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that a contract for holding cattle fair was auctioned by the Muncipal Board, Rajaldesar in 1957 and the bid of onei Bhagwat Dayal for Rs. 1051/- being the highest, it was sanctioned in his favour. On 12th October, 1959 Bhgwat Dayal sent an application through one Shubhram to the petitioner No. 1 who was the Chairman of the Municipal Board. Rajaldesar, saying that Shubhram was his partner and he should be allowed to hold the cattle fair. Whatever amount of the instalment is paid by him should be deposited and he would himself meet the chairmar on 15th or 16th October. The amount remaining due for the instalment would be paid and the Municipal Board should not worry about it. It is said that Shubhram paid Rs. 175/-, to the petitioner No. 1 on that date. The petitioner did not deposit this amount in the Municipal Board and no bntries were made in the cash book. On the other hand notices for the full amount due i. e. Rs. 350/)- in respect of the yearly instalment were Issued to Bhagwat Dayal under the signatures of the petitioner No. 1. No receipt was also issued this Subhram when he paid Rs. 175/- to the Chairman. On 12th January, 1960, Shubhram made ai complaint that he had not been given receipt for Rs. 175/which he had paid to the Chairman. Thereafter, on 16th January, 1960 the attaint of Rs. 175/- is said to have been entered in the 4andsh book of the Municipal Board. On the facts charge sheet was submitted by the [police against the petitioner No. 1 but the learned Magistrate after considering the documents-placed before him also issued process against petitioner No. 2 and after hearing the parties framed charges Under Section 409 of the Indian Penal. Code against both of them. It was contended before the learned Magistrate on behalf of petitioner No. 1 that he could not be prosecuted unless there was a sanction for the same by the Government. This contention was also overruled by. the. learned Magistrate. The petitioners then preferred a revision application before the learned Additional Sessions judge, Chum but he too rejected, the application.

(3.) IN this revision application it is urged by the learned Counsel that sanction by the Government Was necessary for the prosecution of petitioner No. 1 as he was a Chairman of Municipal Board and could not be removed from his office: save by the orders of the Government, In support of this contention reliance is placed on Amrik Singh v. State of Pepsu (S) ,. Chimanbhai Kashibhai v. Jashbai Motibhai and the State of Rajasthan v. Onkardas. It is also urged that from the documents which were placed before the learned Magistrate by the police, charge Under Section 409 of the Indian-Penal Code cannot be made out. In this connection he has referred to the order passed on the application dated 12th October, 1959 and several other orders on the file of the Municipal Board. . . . Learned Assistant Government Advocate contends that no previous sanction for the prosecution of a public servant for offence Under Section 409-at the Indian Penal Code is - necessary. Reliance is placed on Om Prakash v. State of U. P. (S) and Moolsingh v. The State ILR (1959) 9 Raj 1020.