SURAJ NARAIN CHAUBE Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a criminal appeal on behalf of one Suraj Narain Chaube who has been convicted under Section 169, I.P.C. and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100 or in default to six months rigorous imprisonment. The accused was in 1935 a member of the District Board of Ballia and the cattle pound of Sahatwar was under his charge. A buffalo was auctioned on 26 May 1935 by and under the supervision of the accused. The cattle pound is close to the police outpost and the head constable Amir Ali was anxious to buy this buffalo which was of good breed. The buffalo was sold for Rs. 30 to Baleshar Nonia and the auction was closed. Some allegations were made that Baleshar only paid Rs. 13 but the Court below was satisfied on the evidence of the pound keeper that the Rs. 30 was paid and entered as paid that day. There is evidence that Baleshar Nonia and Dharaka Dusadh took away the buffalo. On the next day, 27th May 1935, Suraj Narain made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police alleging that the head constable Amir Ali intimidated him and wrongfully confined Baleshar Nonia and Dharaka Dusadh and demanded bribe from them. Enquiry was made into this and eventually Suraj Narain was prosecuted under Section 182. I.P.C., for making a false report and fined1 Rs. 200. Now the police also reported that Suraj Narain had improperly got this buffalo bought for himself by Baleshar Nonia and that Dharaka Dusadh who helped to take it away was a servant of Suraj Narain. The matter was further complicated by allegations of forgery which have now been found by the Court below to be incorrect. The Court below has convicted the accused under this Section 169, I.P.C., which runs as follows: Whoever, being a public servant, and being legally bound as such public servant, not to purchase or bid for certain property, purchases or bids for that property, either in his own name or in. the name of another, or jointly, or in shares with others, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or With fine, or with both; and the property, if purchased, shall be confiscated.

(2.) Now one question which arises in the case which was urged by learned Counsel for the defence was that sanction was-required from the Local Government under Section 197, Criminal P.C. That Section states in Sub-section (1): ...when any public servant who is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of Local Government or some higher authority, 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....

(3.) Now there are two periods mentioned in this quotation, the first being the time of the accusation and the second period being the time of the offence. As the Section is worded, it appears to me that the Section requires that for the Section to apply the accused must be a public servant at both these periods. It is not sufficient that the accused should be a public servant at the time of the offence. The accused must also be a public servant at the time when he is accused that is at the time when the accusation is made against him either by a complaint or a police report. Now the accusation was made against this accused before the Magistrate at the time when he had ceased to be a member of the District Board. The matter did not start until the year 1937, and the charge is dated 3 August 1937. The accused had ceased to be a District Board member in the end of 1936. In my opinion therefore no sanction was necessary.