PRAFULLA KUMAR CHAKRAVARTI Vs. DHODHA SAHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application in revision is on behalf of one Prafulla Kumar Chakravarty who was an Honorary Magistrate when the alleged occurrence took place.

(2.) A few facts may be stated here for a proper appreciation of the points that have, been raised. The petitioner as an Honorary Magistrate had before him a case under Section 323 and 879, Indian Penal Code. One Dhodha Sahani figured as one of the accused in this case. On 4 January 1947 this Dhodha Sahani filed a petition of complaint in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate making certain serious allegations against the petitioner. Dhodha Sahani's case was that the petitioner took from him a sum of Rs. 400/- on 22 December, 1946 promising to acquit him in the case pending against him. The case against the petitioner further was that the petitioner delivered judgment in the case on 23 December 1946 convicting Dhodha Sahani and the other co-accused and sentencing each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 20/-. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate examined Dhodha Sahani on solemn affirmation and directed the Second Officer to make anenquiry and submit his report. As the Second Officer was under the orders of transfer and it was thought that his successor in office might not be free for sometime, the enquiry was directed to be made by another Magistrate Mr. Sukhdeo Singh. The Magistrate who was asked to make the enquiry on the suggestion of the Second Officer, held an enquiry, examined witnesses and submitted his report. Among the witnesses examined by him were two persons one named Harnandan and the other Mukhlal. The enquiring Magistrate forwarded the statements of the witnesses to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, but the statements of Harnandan and Mukhlal were not to be found in the record of the case. On 3 Febuary 1947 the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate ordered summons to be issued against the petitioner under Section 161, Indian Penal Code. These are all the relevant facts of the case.

(3.) It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the initiation of proceedings under Section 161, Indian Penal Code, was bad in law inasmuch as no sanction, as required by Section 197, Criminal P.C. was obtained. Reliance has been placed on a number of rulings in support of the contention that the sanction contemplated under Section 197, Criminal P.C., is necessary in a case like this. The question of sanction "tinder Section 197, Criminal P.C., has been discussed in a series of rulings of different High Courts. I must say that there is no unanimity of opinion in the matter. Even the same High Court has adopted different views at different times. Before I discuss the rulings I should like to refer to Section 197, Criminal P.C. itself. This section like many other sections of the same Code was amended in the year 1923. Before the amendment no Court could take cognizance of an offence committed by any Judge or any public servant if the Judge or public servant was accused as such Judge or public servant, without the sanction of appropriate authorities. The words "is accused as such Judge or public servant of any offence" gave rise to considerable difficulty in the matter of interpretation of the section in question. The section was recast by the amending Act of 1923. According to the provisions of the Code, as it stands at present, such sanction will be necessary where a Judge or a public servant "is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty." In the case with which we are concerned, it is contended that as the petitioner could not have committed the alleged offence if he was not an Honorary Magistrate, Section 197, Criminal P.C., has application and sanction is necessary.