Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Veer Narayan Singh Parte vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 May, 2018

Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 MP 49

 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH:
       MAIN SEAT AT JABALPUR

(DIVISION BENCH: HON. SHRI S.K. SETH AND
      HON. SMT. NANDITA DUBEY, JJ)


   Criminal Revision No.2465/2017

Veer Narayan Singh Parte
                               ...Applicant/s
           V E R S U S

State of Madhya Pradesh,
Through:- Economic Offences Wing,
Jabalpur (M.P.)
                         ...Respondent/s
Shri Manish Tiwari, Advocate for the
applicant.
Shri Gurdeep Singh Wadhwa, Advocate for
the respondent/EOW.
Whether approved for reporting- Yes/No
Law Laid Down -
Significant Paragraphs -
                O R D E R

(Delivered on this 8th day of May, 2018) PER SETH, J.

This Criminal Revision is directed against the order dated 14.06.2017 passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Mandla in Special Case No.01/2017 whereby application under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been rejected.

::2::

2. Brief facts, which are not disputed and necessary for the disposal of the present petition are as under:-

3. Applicant is one of the accused who is facing criminal trial before the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Mandla, for the offences punishable under Sections 13 (1)(d), 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 409, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. A private complaint for registration of the said offences has been filed alleging that the applicant along with other co-

accused persons embezzled the Government Money and misused their power and committed forgery with the Government.

4. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the accused persons including the present applicant. After cognizance was taken, applicant filed an application under Section 19 of the P.C. Act read with ::3::

Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. on the ground that at the time of commission of offences, he was working as In-Charge Officer in Municipal Council, Mandla. The contention of the applicant was that he was a public servant and without there being any prior sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the cognizance taken against him is illegal. Hence, he filed an application to quash the order taking cognizance of the case against the applicant which has been rejected by the learned Trial Judge by the order impugned. Hence, this petition.

5. After having heard learned counsel for the applicant at length and going through the material placed on record, we do not find any merit and substance in the petition.

6. It is an admitted fact that the permission under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. is not required before taking cognizance. In this connection, we may also refer paragraph 50 of the judgment of the ::4::

Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Singh Badal and another Vs. State of Punjab and others reported in (2007) 1 SCC 1, which reads as under:-

"50. The offence of cheating under Section 420 or for that matter offences relatable to Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B can be no stretch of imagination by their very nature be regarded as having been committed by any public servant while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duty. In such cases, official status only provides an opportunity for commission of the offence."

7. In the case of State of U.P. Vs. Paras Nath Singh reported in 2009 Cri.L.J. 3069 , it has been held by their Lordships' in paras 10 and 11 as under:-

"10. That apart, the contention of the respondent that for offences under Sections 406 and 409 read with Section 120-B of IPC sanction under Section 197 of the Code is a condition precedent for launching the prosecution is equally fallacious. This Court has stated the legal position in S.R. Munnipalli V. State of Bombay (1955 (1) ::5::

SCR 1177) and in Amrik Singh V. State of Pepsu (1955 RD-SC 9) that it is not every offence committed by a public servant, which requires sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of the Code, nor even every act done by him while he is actually engaged in the performance of his official duties. Following the above legal position it was held in Harihar Prasad, etc. v. State of Bihar (1972 (3) SCC 89) as follows:

'As far as the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120-B, read with Section 409, Indian Penal Code is concerned and also Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is concerned, they cannot be said to be of the nature mentioned in Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. To put it shortly, it is no part of the duty of a public servant, while discharging his official duties, to enter into a criminal conspiracy or to indulge in criminal misconduct. Want of sanction under Section 197 of the Code of ::6::

Criminal Procedure is, therefore, no bar.'

11. Above views are reiterated in State of Kerala V. Padmanabhan Nair (1999 (5) SCC 690). Both Amrik Singh (supra) and S.R. Munnipalli (supra) were noted in that case. Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC relate to forgery of valuable security, Will etc; forgery for purpose of cheating and using as genuine a forged document respectively. It is no part of the duty of a public servant while discharging his official duties to commit forgery of the type covered by the aforesaid offences. Want of sanction under Section 197 of the Code is, therefore, no bar."

8. In view of the aforesaid discussions and the statement of law, we do not find any merit and substance in the present Criminal Revision, therefore, the same being devoid of any substance is hereby dismissed.

9. Ordered accordingly.

(S.K. SETH) (NANDITA DUBEY) J U D G E J U D G E @shish Digitally signed by ASHISH KUMAR JAIN Date: 2018.05.08 16:30:46 +05'30'