-1- Criminal Revision No.1112 of 2003. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.1112 of 2003. Date of Decision: February 10, 2010. Rajinder Kumar and others ...Petitioners VERSUS Manmohan Singh and others ...Respondents 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: Mr. J.R. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. None for the respondents. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short `the Code') against the order dated 6.1.2003 passed by the Special Judge, Bathinda, whereby the complaint under Sections 330/ 387/504/ 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short `the Code') read with the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short `the Act') and Section 120-B of the Code, filed by them (petitioners) against the respondents, who were employees of the Central Excise & Custom, was dismissed. I have heard Mr. J.R. Sharma, Advocate, appearing for -2- Criminal Revision No.1112 of 2003. the petitioners, and have perused the records of the case. Petitioner Rikhi Ram is concerned with M/s. Azad Engineering Works, Bathinda, petitioner Rajinder Kumar is General Secretary of District Beopar Mandal, Bathinda, petitioner Madan Lal is concerned with M/s. K.C. Medical Hall, Bathinda, petitioner Sham Lal is concerned with M/s. Goel Tent House, Bathinda, petitioner Madan Lal is an employee of M/s. Singla Machinery Store and petitioner Sarup Chand Singla is partner of M/s. Super Steel Industries, Bathinda. Respondents Nos. 1 to 11, who were arraigned as accused in this complaint, are the employees of Central Excise & Custom Department and are public servants. Raids were conducted on the premises of M/s. Azad Engineering Works, M/s. Super Steel Industries and M/s. Single Machinery Store by the respondents. The allegations of the petitioners were that the premises of M/s. Azad Engineering Works, M/s. Super Steel Industries and M/s. Single Machinery Store were raided by the accused simultaneously. As per allegations of the petitioners, at the time of raid most of the accused were equipped with Revolvers/Pistols and none of them was in uniform. None of the persons who had conducted the raid had shown their Identity Card and only intimated that they were officials of the Central Excise & Custom Department. The further allegation is that the accused-respondents forced the petitioners to make confessional statements. The accused-respondents also raised illegal demand / bribe from the petitioners / their employees / persons present in the premises at the time of -3- Criminal Revision No.1112 of 2003. raids if they wanted to patch up the matter. This illegal demand of the accused-respondents could not be acceded to by the petitioners etc. Later on, as per the allegations contained in the complaint, the mob gathered there. The matter was reported to the police. Later on, at the instance of the officials of the Central Excise & Custom Department, F.I.R. No.60 dated 6.3.1998 under Sections 353/ 186/ 427/ 506/ 382/ 148 read with Section 149 of the Code was registered against petitioners Madan Lal Kapoor, Sarup Chand Singla etc. for assaulting or using criminal force to deter public servants from discharging their duty, obstructing public servants in discharge of public functions etc. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and perusing the records of the case, I do not find any ground which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Admittedly, the accused-respondents are employees of the Central Excise & Custom Department. It cannot be said that the raids were conducted by them at the premises of M/s. Azad Engineering Works, M/s. Super Steel Industries and M/s. Single Machinery Store in their individual capacity and not as public servants. As stated above, at the instance of the officials of the Central Excise & Custom Department, F.I.R. No.60 dated 6.3.1998 under Sections 353/ 186/ 427/ 506/ 382/ 148 read with Section 149 of the Code was registered against petitioners Madan Lal Kapoor, Sarup Chand Singla etc. for -4- Criminal Revision No.1112 of 2003. obstructing public servants from performing their official duties. The present complaint appears to have been filed by the petitioners as a counter-blast to the criminal case registered against the petitioners. Admittedly, sanction was required from the competent authority to launch prosecution against the accused-respondents, who are public servants. In this case, no effort was made by the complainants-petitioners to seek permission from the competent authority to file a complaint against the accused. Consequently, this revision petition is hereby dismissed being without any merit. February 10, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE