HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.M.P. N0. 202/2011 PETITIONBR RESPONDENTS VERSUS 1. 2. 3. 4, 5. C.D, Khobragadhe S/o Lala Khobragadhe, aged about 54 years, Caste Mahar, R/o H.I.G. 1/10, Sector-3, Paudit Dindayal Upadhyay Nagar, Raipur (C.G,). Hem Singh S/o Janak RainRathiya, aged about 45-46 years, Caste Kanwar, Occupation Cultivation & Social Works, R/o viUage Gorpar, PoUce Station & TahsU Kharastya, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.). Bihari Das Mahaut S/o Rohi Das Mahaut, aged about 44-45 years, Occupatioa Upsarpaach, R/o Gorpar Chowki Jobi, PoBce Station & Tahsil Kharasiya, Distt. Ra^arh (C.G.). Gulab Singh Rathiya S/o Bodhan Siugh Rathiya, aged about 37 years, Sarpaach Gram Paachayat Gorpar, Tahsil- Kharasiya, Distt. Ra^arh (C.G.). Kartik Ram Rafhiya S/o Asain Singh Rathiya, aged about 36 years, Caste Kanwar, Occupation Secretary/ Paachyat Karmi, Gram Panchayat Gorpar, Tahsil Kharasiya, Distt. Ra^arh (C.G.). K.P, Patel S/o Late Shri Raj Kumar Patel, Retired Assistant Engineer, R/o ViUage Jatari, PoUce Station & TahsU -Pusaur, Present Address: Krishna Watika Boirdadar Raigarh. Distt. Raigarh (C.G.). 6. Bhupendra Kuuiar Verma S/o Ganesh Ram Verma, Owner of Tractor, aged about 36 yeara, ViUage Sajapali, Tahsil Kharasiya, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.). 7. Govertiment of Chhattisgarh Through the District M^istrate, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.O.). PETITION UNDER SECTIONL482^ OjL'niE OCWB OTLCTtnUNAI, PROCEDURE. 1973. (SB :Hon>ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Sttri Risbi Rahul Soiu, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Qamarul Aziz, P.L. for the State/respondent No, 7. Respondents No, 1 to 6 not noticed. ORAL-ORDER (Passedon 08/04/2011) 1. By ttiis petitiou under Sectiou 482 of tfae Code of Cruninal Procedure, 1973 (iu short 'the Code^ petitioner bas chaUenged the legality aud propriely of ttie order dated 31/1/2011 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) Raigarh District Raigarh (C.G.) in crmunal revision No. 164/2010 afiBnaiag thc order datcd 8/9/2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kharasya District Raigarh in. crimmal case No. 498/2009 whcreby trial Court has rcjected the application for dropping of critninal conaplaint, in absence of sanction for prosecutioa of the petitiouer in terms of Section 197 ofthe Code. 2. Shri Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate for fhe petitioner and Shri Qaruarul Aziz, P.L. for the State/respondent No. 7 are heard. \^f^%l. ;:? f^". ~^: "^ i 1 1 "';3i3asa.? ^ ^s**(y. "?• 6. Order impugned, copy of the complaiut, copy of fhe application filed iinder Section 197 of ffae Code aad copy of other documents perused. Learaed coimsel for the petitioner submits fhat present petitioner was working as Assistant Engiaeer at thc relevant time and as per aUegation made ia the coniplaint present petitioner has conmutted aforesaid offence dunug course of dischai^e of his official duly therefore sanction for prosecution ia terms of Section 197 of the Code is sine-quo-non for talring cognizaiice by the Court but in stead of droppiag cnminal coinplamt trial Coitrt has disBaissed fhe appUcation iu cryptic and causal nianner that Court has already teken cognizaace and previously coniplaiiiaat has not been du'ected for obtamiug saaction saine has been affirmed by the revisional Court. Learued counsel for the petitioner furfher subuuts fhat in order to decide the questiou of sanction Court below was iiader obligation to examine fhe aUegation inade in coinplaiat and the material collected on behalf of fhe prosecution whefher petitioner has committed aforesaM offence wlule dischai^ing his ofi6cial duty or nofc Learned couasel for fhe petitioner placed reliaace in the laatter of Anulk SInah v. State of Peosu1 in which Supreme Court has held that ia every offence comautted by public servaat saaction is required under Section 197 (1) of fhie Code is not necessaiy but if fhe aUeged offence mcludiag offeuce of criminal imsappTOpriation by ffae public servaat has becu committed by fhe public servant iu dischat^mg ofhis of&cial duty then fhc saaction is required. ' A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 309 (Vol. 42, C.N. 54) :.^"J' '.:. ' "l<?^ '»• ^^£ ''•"fm^ ^' 7. Learaed counsel for the petitioner furfher placcd reUance ia the matterof P.K. Pradhaa v. The State of SlUdiia reiaeseated by the Central Bureau of Investleation2 in which Supreme Court has held that there must be rcasonable connection between act complained and ofofficial duty while decidmg questiou ofsauction. 8. On the ofher hand, leamed counsel for ffae State/respondent No, 7 opposed the petition and subinits fhat Court below has registered the offences ^amst fhe petitioner in under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 120-B of fhe Indiau Penal Code. Ofifence of cheatiag and forgery aud criininal misappropriation are not the act conunitted in dischai^tng of his ofiBcial duty but official position of petitioner facUitated fhe petitioner to comialttee such offence. OflSce 6f cheating, foi^eiy and crimiaal misappropriation of pubUc moaey caanot be term as a of&cial duly of the public servant NormaBy tfae office of such public servaat facilitated fhe pubUc senraut to coinmit such ofifence but at the time of deciding the question of sanction or taking cogiuzan.ee as heM ia case of P.K. Pradhan (Supra) Court was under obUgation to consider whether there M any reasonabte coimection betsyeen the act coinplaiaant aud of official duly or the act complaiaed aad the ofBcial duly of fhe pubUc servant is not separable. 9. As per aUegation made iu fhe compliant pctitioner was posted as pubUc servant. As per aUegation he aking with ofher accused persons has forgcd fhe niuster-role and coimiutted cheatmg and forgeiy and has failed to couat for public inoney entrusted to Wm. Foi^eiy of public docuxnent, cheatiag and aforesaid crmunal AIR 2001 SC 2547 misappropriation is not reasonable connection witii the ofEicial act of the petitioner, in fhe present case he has been fa.cflitated by occupying such post. 10. Por the foregoing reasons, no aay sanction for prosecution for petitioner was necessaiy by disamissiag fhe petition both the Courts below have not coimnitted any iUegaMty, warrauting any iaterference in exercise ofextraordniaiy inherentjiirisdiction ia tenas ofSecdon 482 ofthe Code. Consequenfty, petition is Uable to be dismissed aad is hereby disnussed. 11. I.A. No. 01 is also dismissed. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge 'f.--