BHANWAR LAL MALI Vs. SOHAN RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Section 482, Cr. P.C. for setting aside the order of the Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Pipar dated January 12, 1987 by which cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 384, I.P.C. has been taken against the petitioner and also the order of the Special Judge (E.C.), Jodhpur dated April 27, 1989 dismissing the revision petition filed against the said order dated January 12, 1987 and for quashing the proceedings in which the order dated 12.1.1987 has been passed.

(2.) The facts of the case giving rise to this petition may be summarised thus. On 05.01.1987, the complainant-respondent Sohan Raj filed a complain under Section 384, I.P.C. against the accused- petitioner with the averments that he granted contracts in October, 1986 to Bhanwar Das and Kana Ram for raising construction on his plot situated in the village Chowkari Kala, on 20.11.1986 the accused-petitioner threatened him that he would stop the contractors from raising constructions on his plot and would demolish the construction already made in his capacity as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat if he was not paid Rs. 1,500/-, the same day he paid Rs. 500/- to the accused-petitioner and promised to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 1,000/- after few days, when the amount was not paid, the accused-petitioner served notice on 25.11.1986 for stopping the construction but subsequently good sense prevailed but he did not return the said amount of Rs. 500/-. After recording statements of the complainant under Section 200 and of his witnesses Pauna Ram P.W. 2 and Pukh Raj P.W. 3 under Section 202, Cr. P.C. cognizance was taken under Section 384, I.P.C. against the accused-petitioner by order dated January 12, 1987. Revision petition was filed against this order by the accused-petitioner but it was dismissed holding that a prima facie case is made out against the accused-petitioner under Section 384, I.P.C. From the evidence on record and the provisions of Section 197, Cr. P.C. are not attracted.

(3.) It has been contended by learned counsel for the accused-petitioner that the learned subordinate Courts have not properly considered the provisions of Section 197, Cr. P.C. and have also not considered at all the provisions of Section 99, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 requiring previous sanction of the State Government for taking cognizance. He further contended that besides offences under Section 384, I.P.C. offence punishable under Sectian 7, Prevention of Corruptian Act is also made out from the averments made in the complaint and statements of the complainant and his witnesses, admittedly the State Government has not granted sanction and as such the impugned orders deserve to be set aside and the proceedings to be quashed.