PRINCE Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

(2.) PETITIONER is aggrieved by the order dated 18.2.2003 passed by Sri M.K. Tripathi, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gumla, in G.R. No. 639 of 1992, whereby the application filed for discharge under Section 239 of the Cr PC, was rejected by the Court below.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has taken a short point for pressing the application, submitting that the petitioner is a public servant and accordingly, his actions are protected under Section 197 of the Cr PC, but no Sanction under Section 197, Cr PC was obtained for prosecution of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his arguments to this sole point and has submitted that in view of the non -obtaining of the sanction for prosecution of the petitioner, the petitioner being the public servant, ought to have been discharged. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further pointed out that the enquiry report dated 5.1.1993, which has been brought on record as Annexure -12 to the Supplementary Affidavit, shows that in the departmental proceeding, the petitioner was exonerated of the charge mainly on the ground that there was no shortage of stock of the Kendu leaves in the godown, of which the petitioner was in charge, as also in view of the fact that on the date of occurrence, the petitioner was on leave and he was under medical treatment. However, it appears from this enquiry report also that permits were found to be forged.