MANGHARAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision by Mangharam against the order of the learned additional Munsif Magistrate, First Class Ajmer City West dated 19th November, 1932 in refusing to take further proceedings in the complaint against the non-petitioners Shri Triloki Nath Chaturvedi, Administrator, Municipal Council, Ajmer and Shri Prayag Raj Mathur, Commissioner, Municipal Council, Ajmer on the ground that prior sanction of the State Government as required under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was not obtained by the petitioner for their prosecution.

(2.) THE present complaint was filed by the petitioner on 2nd June, 1961, and the material allegations made in the complaint are set out in the judgment of this court in Mangharam v. The State ILR (1962) 12 Raj 601. On the facts alleged it was stated that the non-petitioners had committed offences punishable under sections 147, 427, 451, 380, 411 and 500 read with Section 34/109 of the Indian penal Code. Before taking any proceedings on the complaint the learned magistrate had dropped the proceedings against the non-petitioners on 14th June, 1961 on the ground that previous sanction of the State Government was not obtained by the complainant. Against this order a revision was preferred before this court and it was held that there were not proper materials before the court to come to the conclusion that the act complained of was committed by the non-petitioners while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their official duty. It was further observed that it would be open to the Magistrate to decide about the necessity of sanction when proper materials are placed before him. The order dated 14th June, 1961 was thus set aside. After the case was received back, it was once dismissed in default of the complainant's appearance on 1st March, 1962. This order of dismissal of the complaint was set aside by the learned Sessions Judge and the case was again sent back. It was then transferred to the court of the Munsif Magistrate, First class, Ajmer who on 21st July 1962 fixed 10th August, 1962 for holding a preliminary enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also issued notices to the persons complained against. A preliminary enquiry was held and the complainant examined four witnesses on 6th September, 1962 and gave his own statement on 10th September, 1962 and examined one more witness on the same date. Thereafter the proceedings remained suspended in the court of the learned Magistrate because the complainant moved a transfer application in the court of the learned Sessions Judge. This transfer application was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge on 3rd November, 1962 and the file was received back on 7th November, 1962. The file was put up before the learned Magistrate on 19th November, 1962. On that date the complainant again intimated the court of his intention to move the high Court for the transfer of the case from his court. Another application for adjournment of the case to enable his counsel to prepare arguments was moved by the complainant. Both these applications were rejected and the learned magistrate passed the order under revision. The complainant took up this matter to the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer, but his revision application was rejected. He has therefore, again come up to this Court in revision.

(3.) THE main grounds now urged on his behalf are that the procedure adopted by the Munsif Magistrate in issuing notices to the persons complained against at the time when he was making a preliminary enquiry under Section 202 of the Code was unwarranted by law. Reliance is placed on Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash chandra Bose, AIR 1963 S C 1430 that the order of the Munsif Magistrate is also bad in law because it was passed after intimition had been given to him of the complainant's intention to move the High Court for the transfer of the case from his court, that the persons complained against had no right to show at that stage of the case that the act complained of was committed by them in the discharge of their official duty and lastly that on the materials on record the order of dropping proceedings against the non-petitioners was not justified.