Crl. Revision No.367 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.367 of 2010 Date of Decision: August 24, 2010 Satya Narain @ Kal ........Petitioner Versus Sohan Lal and others ........Respondents ****** CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Jitender Nara, Advocate, for the petitioner. SABINA, J. Petitioner had filed a criminal complaint under Sections 211,323,325,341,342,506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') against the respondents. Charge was framed against the respondents by the trial Court vide order dated 22.4.2009 under Sections 323,325/34 IPC. Aggrieved by the said order, respondents filed a revision petition and the same was allowed by the Sessions Judge, Jhajjar vide impugned order dated 4.9.2009. Hence, the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the provision of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') were not attracted in this case as at the relevant time respondents could not be said to be performing their official duty. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. Section 197 Cr.P.C. reads as under :- Crl. Revision No.367 of 2010 2 “197.Prosecution of Judges and public servants (1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government 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, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction- (a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government; (b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Government. [Provided that where the alleged offence was committed by a person referred to in clause (b) during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of Article 356 of the Constitution was in force in a State, clause (b) will apply as if for the expression “State Government” occurring therein, the expression “Central government” were substituted.] (2) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Union while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. (3) The State Government may, by notification, direct that the provisions of sub-section (2) shall apply to such class or category of the members of the Crl. Revision No.367 of 2010 3 Forces charged with the maintenance of public order as may be specified therein, wherever they may be serving, and thereupon the provisions of that sub- section will apply as if for the expression "Central Government" occurring therein, the expression "State Government" were substituted. [(3A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (3), no Court shall take cognizance of any offence, alleged to have been committed by any member of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order in a State while action or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force therein, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.] [(3B) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Code or any other law, it is hereby declared that any sanction accorded by the State Government or any cognizance taken by a Court upon such sanction, during the period commencing on the 20th day of August, 1991 and ending with the date immediately preceding the date on which the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1991, receives the assent of the President, with respect to an offence alleged to have been committed during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force in the State, shall be invalid and it shall be competent for the Central Government in such matter to accord sanction and for the Court to take cognizance thereon.] (4) The Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, may determine the Crl. Revision No.367 of 2010 4 person by whom, the manner in which, and the offence or offences for which, the prosecution of such Judge, Magistrate or public servant is to be conducted, and may specify the Court before which the trial is to be held.” The learned Sessions Judge while allowing the revision petition in para 7 of the impugned order has held as under :- “Admittedly, the revision-petitioners are the employees of the Police Department. They were deployed on examination duty on the date, time and place of the present occurrence by the concerned authorities. It was their duty to take all those steps which were necessary for maintaining law and order during the examination at that centre. Admittedly, the complainant alongwith Balraj was present near the examination centre and that the revision -petitioners asked him to leave that place. According to the version of the respondent, he was not doing any ill act. Therefore, the revision-petitioners had no right to ask him to leave that place, whereas according to the revision-petitioners the respondent was indulging in providing unfair means to his sister to help her in the examination. Therefore, they directed him not to indulge in that illegal act and to leave that place. It is an admitted fact that formal FIR No.96 dated 23.3.2000 was lodged against the respondent in P.S. City, Bahadurgarh on the complaint of revision- Crl. Revision No.367 of 2010 5 petitioner Sohan Pal. Therefore, from all the aforesaid facts, it is clear that whatever the revision- petitioners did at the relevant time, they did while discharging their official duties and while maintaining law and order on the examination centre. Therefore, it is clear that there was a nexus between their duties and their alleged act. This being so, they can only be prosecuted after obtaining the sanction as required under section 197 Cr.P.C. from the competent authority. It is an admitted fact that the respondent before filing the complaint against the revision-petitioners did not obtain the sanction from the competent authority. This legal lacuna in the case of the prosecution was not taken into consideration by learned trial Court. Therefore, the impugned order of the learned trial court is not based on law. In this connection, reliance can be placed on Bhupender Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2002(3) C.C.J. 717 and Anjani Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another, 2008 (2) C.C.J. 33.” The reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge while allowing the revision petition are sound reasons. The case of the complainant is that the was present near the examination centre and the respondents were present there to maintain law and order situation. Petitioner was asked to leave the place but he did not do so and the respondents gave beatings to him. The case of the respondents was that the petitioner had been indulging Crl. Revision No.367 of 2010 6 in unfair means in order to help his sister who was taking the exam. In these circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge had rightly held that sanction as required under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was necessary from the competent authority before proceedings against the respondents as at the relevant time they were acting in discharge of their official duty. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. (SABINA) August 24, 2010 JUDGE Anand