RUDRA DAT BHATT Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision on behalf of one Pandit Rudra Datt Bhatt, who has been convicted under Section 168, Indian Penal Code, read with Section 34, District Boards Act, and sentenced to four months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000 or three months simple imprisonment in default of payment. The charge framed against the accused was that being a member of the District Board of Almora from November 1928 of November 1930 he carried on during this period the business of supplying coir matting to the said District Board in the name of Gangaram Kishorimohan thus engaging in trade without the permission of the Commissioner contrary to Section 34(1), District Boards Act, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 168, Indian Penal Code. The conviction and sentence of the Magistrate was upheld on appeal by the learned Sessions Judge. The finding of the Sessions Court is that there was: a carefully worked out scheme to get something like a 100 per cent profit from the Board "while the appellant was a member of it" and that: in one year the District Board paid Rs. 1,005, and for matting the price came to a little under Rs. 950. The price of the matting with freight as entered in the ledger of the accused came to about half that amount.

(2.) The points in regard to the facts were not pressed before us and we consider that the facts found are correct. The arguments which have been addressed to us are arguments on points of law. In the first place it was argued that the sanction in this case was not sufficient and that the prosecution had not been properly initiated. There was a letter of sanction from the Local Government stating that Government gave sanction under Section 197, Criminal P.C., to the prosecution of the accused under Section 168, Indian Penal Code, read with Section 34, District Boards Act, and that the accused was formerly a member of the Almora District Board. The Local Government further directed that the trial should be held in the Court of Rai Sahib Pandit Gokaran Nath Ugra, Deputy Collector of Almora. This sanction was conveyed in a letter addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of Almora and the Deputy Commissioner apparently had an enquiry made by the Tahsildar and a complaint was filed in the Court by the Assistant Inspector of Schools, Ku-maun. An argument was addressed to us that the sanction was addressed to the Deputy Commissioner and he should have filed a complaint. There is no provision in Section 197, Criminal P.C, for a sanction to be addressed to any particular officer. A sanction is an order directing the prosecution of a certain person and in the ordinary way that order is conveyed to the authorities who are responsible for initiating prosecutions in the locality in question. That was what was done in the present case and we do not see that there was anything irregular in the procedure. The sanction was given in the present case because when the accused was a member of the District Board he was not removable from his office without the consent of the Local Government. A further argument was addressed to us. Under Section 182, District Boards Act, of 1922, the following provision is made: Unless otherwise expressly provided, no Court shall take cognizance of any of the offence punishable under this Act or under any rule or bye- law except on the complaint of, or upon information received from, the Board or some person authorized by the Board by general or special order in this behalf.

(3.) The argument for the applicant was that the present prosecution should have been started under this section on a complaint of the Board or some person authorised by the Board and that this has not been done. But the section refers to "offences punishable under this Act or under any rule or "by a law." The present offence is not an offence which falls within this description. It was argued that the present offence was one under Section 34, District Boards Act. That may be so but it is not punishable under Section 34, on the contrary it is punishable under Section 168, Indian Penal Code. Section 34, Sub-section (1) runs as follows: A member of the Board who, otherwise than with the permission in writing of the Commissioner, knowingly acquires, or continues to have directly or indirectly by himself or his partner, any share or interest in any contract or employment by, or on behalf of the Board shall be deemed to have committed an offence under S. IC 8, I.P.C.