BIRBAL Vs. JAMNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh dated 25-3-1987 whereby he has held that the accused Birbal Ram who is a Sarpanch cannot seek the protection of Section 197 Cr. P. C. and the court take cognizance without sanction of the Government for prosecution of acts done by him in discharge of his official duty.

(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the petitioner is a Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Goluwala Tehsil Pilibanga District Ganganagar and in discharge of his official duty went to the house of one Smt. Jamna and Ramchandra and uprooted them in pursuance of the resolution of the Gram Panchayat on the ground that Modu Ram who owns the present land in dispute which was allotted to him way back in the year 1971 should be restored possession of the land in dispute. Modu Ram moved an application before the Gram Panchayat that possession of the land in disputed allotted to him may be handed over to him. It was found that this very piece of land was allotted to one Smt. Jamna and Ram Chandra in the year 1982. When this fact came to the notice of the Gram Panchayat that this land has been allotted to Modu Ram way back in the year 1971 and the same piece of land has been allotted to Smt. Jamna and Ramchandra without any payment of cost, therefore, a notice was issued to Smt. Jamna and Ramchandra on 4-9-1982 that they must remove their possession from the land in dispute within a period of 15 days else their possession will be removed with the help of the police. THEreafter, no action was taken and Modu Ram approached to the Pradhan of the Panchayat Samiti and the Pradhan in turn directed the Gram Panchayat that since the land has been allotted to the petitioner Modu Ram who is from backward class, still possession has not been restored to him, therefore, possession should be restored to him. THEreafter, a request was made by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat to the S. H. O. , Police Station, Pilibanga for police assistance for removing Smt. Jamna and Ramchandra who are in possession of the land in dispute. On 13-9-1982 the S. H. O. Police Station, Pilibanga directed the ASI Sri Bhagwan Singh to assist the Gram Panchayat in getting the land-vacated. In pursuance of this ASI Bhagwansingh along with Birbal Ram and others went to the spot and got the land vacated. THEreafter, a complaint was filed by the non-petitioners Smt. Jamna and Ramchandra before the police as well as before the Collector, Sri Ganganagar, but without any result. THErefore, a complaint was filed in the court of Munsif& Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh and the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate after recording the statements of the witnesses took cognizance against the petitioner Birbal Ram. as well as the ASI Bhagwansingh and others under Sections 436, 148, 149, and 504 IPC. THE notices were issued and thereafter the petitioner and ASI Bhagwan Singh were committed to the Court of Sessions and during the course of the trial an objection was raised before the learned Additional Sessions Judge that since Birbal Ram, Sarpanch and Bhagwan Singh, ASI being public servants cannot be prosecuted without previous sanction from the competent authority under Section 197 Cr. P. C. THE learned Additional Sessions Judge after considering over the matter overruled the objection and directed that both the accused persons are not entitled to protection under Section 197 Cr. P. C. Aggrieved against this order, the present revision petition has been filed by Birbal Ram for quashing the order dated 25-3-1987.

(3.) MR. Jain, learned counsel for the non-petitioners has invited my attention to the observations made in Pukhraj's case (Supra) and Bhagwan Prasad Srivastava's case (Supra ). Both these cases deal with the sanction and it has laid down the parameters as to how sanction should be examined when an official acts in discharge of his duties. The ratio which has been laid down is that the officers who discharge their duties in purported exercise of their duties, only those acts are protected.