IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. M. M O. No. 133 of 2008 Date of decision: 17. 3. 2009 Chandigarh Union Territory …..Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 . For the petitioner: Mr. Dushyant Dadhwal, Advocate. For respondent Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate, General. Surinder Singh, J. (Oral) The petitioner felt aggrieved by the framing of the charges against him under Section 429, 295-A and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 11 (d) (1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 in criminal case No. 158/2 of 2005/2004, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2 Paonta Sahib. Succinctly, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that on 26.7.2003 at about 11 a.m., the S.H.O. of Police Station Paonta Sahib was present at Behral barrier along with some police officials. He received an information that some cows were lying dead in “Lal Dhank” area within the territory of Himachal Pradesh. On this 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes. - 2 - information, the police party proceeded to the spot and found that about 19 cows were dead and others were severally injured. The dead/ injured animals were lying on the side of the road. A ruka was sent for the registration of the case and FIR was registered under the aforesaid Sections. Initial investigation revealed that a day earlier i.e. on 25.7.2003, some persons had brought the truck loads of cows from Haryana side and threw them into the “Dhank” and drove off from the spot. The police got conducted the postmortem of the dead cows from the veterinary doctor on the spot. As per report of the postmortem, the cows had died due to injuries sustained by them. Further investigation revealed that the petitioner along with co-accused had brought these cows in two trucks. He himself was following the trucks in a Government Zypsy and the trucks were unloaded under his supervision in the area of Himachal Pradesh in such a manner which fell within the definition of mischief and cruelty to the animals which outraged the religious feelings of Hindus. After collecting the evidence and recording the statements of the witnesses, challan against the petitioner was presented in the court, after obtaining the sanction as per provisions of Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from the State Government, qua the offence punishable under Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code. - 3 - The petitioner herein along with Roshan Lal and Om Parkash took the objection that court was not competent to take cognizance against them for want of prosecution sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but it did not find favour with the learned trial court and they unsuccessfully assailed the order of charge against them on this ground before the court of Sessions in criminal revision petition No. 3-N/10 of 2006 as such, only the petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that the courts below did not apply the law in the right perspective and the courts below failed to appreciate the fact that he was posted as the Superintendent, Slaughter House in the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh. The stray cattles were required to be removed from the area of Union Territory of Chandigarh under the directions of the Court and in compliance thereof he was deputed by the Municipal Corporation with the truck loads of the cows to take them away from the said area. Since he was acting in discharge of his official duty and he did not commit any offence in any case the court could not have taken cognizance for want of prosecution sanction. Mr. Dushyant Dadhwal, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner vehemently argued, firstly that no case against the petitioner is made out and - 4 - secondly, that the court could not have taken cognizance of the offence for want of prosecution sanction as he was acting in discharge of his official duty. Contra Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General has supported the impugned order passed by the learned trial court. In fact, the petitioner is claiming protection under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the circumstances stated above. To claim such protection, inter alia the petitioner is required to establish from the record that the offence was committed in the course of performing his official duty. The primary object of the legislature behind enacting Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to protect the public servants who have acted in discharge of their duties or purported to act in discharge of such duty. But it is equally settled that the act said to have been committed by a public officer must have reasonable connection with the duties sought to be discharged by such public officer. If the act complained of has no nexus, reasonable connection or relevance to the official act or duty of such public servant and is otherwise illegal, unlawful or in the nature of an offence, he cannot get shelter of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In other words protection offered by the said Section is qualified and - 5 - conditional. In other words, it is no part of the duty of the public servant(s) while discharging his/their official duties to commit an offence. From the allegations made in the challan and also looking into the statements of the prosecution witnesses and documents appended thereto, it cannot be said that the petitioner prima facie did not commit any offence. There is nothing on record to show that the cows could have thrown and killed, as alleged in the prosecution case in discharge of his duties that too in the territory of Himachal Pradesh, under his supervision. The act done has no nexus, reasonable connection or relevance to his official duty therefore, the protection under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not available to the petitioner, thus the court is held competent to take cognizance of the offence against the accused, as such revision petition is dismissed. Record of the learned trial court be returned and the parties are hereby directed to appear before the learned trial court on 16.4.2009. March 17, 2009 (Surinder Singh),J. (cm)