IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.608 of 2006 NAVIN PRASAD KHATTIK @ NAVIN PRASAD @ KHATTIK Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4 28.8.2008 This revision application has been preferred against the order dated 2.5.2006 passed by the Sessions Judge, Darbhanga in Criminal Revision No.58/05 thereby the order taking cognizance dated 9.12.2004 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga in C.R.No.136/04 has been set aside. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner lodged complaint case against opposite party no.2 and three others under Sections 323, 341, 427, 504 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate conducted inquiry under Section202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In course of it, the petitioner examined only two witnesses. Ultimately the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against four accused persons including opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.2 preferred revision before the court of Sessions Judge, Darbhanga.The learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision and set aside the order of cognizance mainly on the ground of lack of sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The admitted position is that the opposite party no.2 at the relevant time was District Transport Officer. The occurrence is alleged to have taken in office premises of opposite party no.2. The impugned order would go to show that in course of hearing the opposite party - 2 - no.2 brought a first information report bearing Laheriasarai P.S.Case No.22/04 to the notice of the court filed against the petitioner. The first information report would go to show that the petitioner, who is District President of a political party, entered in the office and started Hangama and also pressurized the opposite party no.2 not to issue tax token to his adversaries. Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure touches the jurisdiction of the court and prohibits from taking cognizance against government official if the occurrence takes place in discharge of official duty. In this case the alleged occurrence took place in course of issuance of tax token to different transporters as well as in course of preventing the petitioner from unauthorized entry in office premises. Thus, it is quite clear that the court below has rightly given benefit of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to opposite party no.2. I find no merit in this application and accordingly this application stands dismissed. B.Jha (Ghanshyam Prasad)