HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1857 OF 2007 DATE:26.11.2009 Between: K. J. Kakanwar …….Petitioner And: M. Prasad and another ……Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1857 OF 2007 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing proceedings in C.C.No.171 of 2006 of the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chittoor relating to the offences punishable under Sections 167, 465, 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The 1st respondent is Chief Executive of one in Governmental organization by name Pedaprajala Seva Samithi located at Gangadhara Nellore village and Mandal, Chittoor District. After certain enquiries and reports, the 1st respondent’s organization was blacklisted by office order dated 24.5.2001 passed by Deputy Director (Vigilance), Central Social Welfare Board, New Delhi. Because of Blacklisting of the organization, flowing of funds to the organization stopped. It irked the 2nd respondent who filed W.P.No.2692 of 2004 in this Court questioning the act of blacklisting his organization. This Court by the order dated 16.11.2006 dismissed the said writ petition as devoid of any merit. The 1st respondent also filed private complaint before the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chittoor against the petitioner/A-1 and A-2 alleging offences under Sections 167,170,196,200,419,427,465, 472,474 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate referred the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code and report. After investigation, the Sub- divisional Police Officer, Palamaner Sub Division holding additional charge of Chittoor Sub-division filed final report in Crime No.2 of 2005 referring the complaint as false. Thereupon the 1st respondent filed objections before the Magistrate who after making enquiry during which the Magistrate recorded sworn statements of the 1st respondent and his witnesses, passed considered order dated 17.11.2006 and took cognizance of the case against A-1 and A-2 for the offences punishable under Sections 167, 465 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. While so, A-2 who was the then Project Officer, A.P. State Social Welfare Advisory Board, Hyderabad filed Criminal Petition No.890 of 2007 in this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code for quashing proceedings in C.C.No.171 of 2006 of the lower court in so far as he is concerned. This Court by the order dated 14.03.2007 allowed the Criminal Petition quashing proceedings in C.C.No.171 of 2006 of the lower court against A-2. The said order dated 14.3.2007 became final as it was not challenged in any higher court. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that prosecution against the petitioner/A-1 also is liable to be quashed for want of sanction for prosecution given by the appropriate Government under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He contends that the 1st respondent himself addressed letter dated 27.2.2007 to the Executive Director, Central Social Welfare Board, New Delhi praying for according sanction to prosecute A-1 on the ground that he was advised to have sanction for prosecution. On the other hand, relying upon decision of the Supreme Court in Parkash Singh Badal and another Vs. State of Punjab and others[1], it is contended by the 1st respondent’s counsel that no sanction is necessary for prosecuting A- 1 for the offences in respect of which the lower court took cognizance against A-1. It was laid down in the above reported decision as follows: “50. The offence of cheating under Section 420 or for that matter offences relatable to Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B can by 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”. Simply because the 1st respondent prayed for sanction from the authorities for prosecution of A-1, it will not operate as estoppel against the 1st respondent from contending that no sanction is required for prosecuting A- 1 for the above offences. There cannot be any estoppel against law. No doubt, this Court on previous occasion in Criminal Petition No.890 of 2007, held that prior sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is necessary for prosecuting A-2. For that decision, A-1 is not a party. The above reported decision of the Supreme Court was not brought to notice of this Court by the 1st respondent when Criminal Petition No.890 of 2007 was heard. Since pronouncement of the Supreme Court operates as law of land, this Court is bound by PARKASH SINGH BADAL and For whatever reasons, this Court may not be competent to go behind that reported decision. In that view of the matter, I find that no prior sanction for prosecution is necessary for taking cognizance of the complaint by the lower court for the offences under Sections 167, 465 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code in so far as the petitioner/A-1 is concerned. Decision of this Court in W.P.No.2692 of 2004 has no relevance in this criminal petition wherein it has to be seen whether the 1st respondent has prima facie made out the offences for which the lower court took cognizance against A-1. Subject matter of W.P.No.2692 of 2004 is only with regard to blacklisting of the 1st respondent’s organization and not commission of any offences by A-1. In fact, A-1 is not a party to that writ petition. Therefore, I find that order dated 16.11.2006 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.2692 of 2004 has no bearing in this case. After submission of final report by the Sub-divisional Police Officer, Palamaner Sub-division, the lower court made elaborate enquiry in which several affidavits of the witnesses who were alleged to have been examined by the investigating officer to the effect that they were in fact not examined by the police, were filed. The 1st respondent also examined Superintendent of D-Section in Collector’s office, Chittoor who produced relevant file before the lower court. In his sworn statement, he categorically stated that letter in ROC.No.CB/1 dated 30.06.1999 and reference No.2/A2/97 dated 30.06.1997 were not sent through their office to the Inspector General of C.I.D, Hyderabad. Thus, the lower court made proper enquiry on private complaint filed by the 1st respondent and gave sufficient reasons for taking cognizance of the case for the above offences even after final report of the Sub-divisional Police Officer, Palamaner Sub-division. I do not find any valid or legal reasons to quash proceedings in C.C.No.171 of 2006 of the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chittoor. In the result, the petition is dismissed. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU,J Date:26.11.2009 Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1857 OF 2007 DATE:26.11.2009 Gk. [1] 2007 (1) Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 193.