Crl. Revision No. 31 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 31 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : March 24, 2011 Sohan Lal ...... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present : Mr. Hem Raj Kapil, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Bhawana Gupta, DAG, Punjab. **** Alok Singh, J (Oral) This revision petition is directed against judgment and order dated 28.9.2010, passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Barnala, by virtue of which the petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Section 218 of Indian Penal Code as well as judgment dated 9.12.2010, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, by virtue of which the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that ASI Sohan Lal-petitioner-accused was Investigating Officer of the case FIR No.56 dated 25.2.2000, under Sections 406/498A IPC registered at Police Crl. Revision No. 31 of 2011 (O&M) 2 Station Kotwali Barnala, against Jatinderpal Goel and his family members. During investigation of the case in the said FIR, revisionist has wrongly shown that he has recorded the statement of one witness namely Hari Chand son of Gurdev Singh resident of Rampura on 17.5.2000 despite the fact that said Hari Chand had already expired on 29.11.1999. Jatinder Pal Goel, against whom revisionist was investigating the case, filed a Criminal Misc. No. 5334-M of 2002. In Criminal Misc. No. 43657-M of 2002, this Court, vide order dated 6.2.2002, directed SSP Barnala, to expedite the enquiry against ASI Sohan Lal for recording the statement of Hari Chand on 17.5.2000 and 17.9.2000 whereas said Hari Chand had already expired on 29.11.1999. It was ordered that in case enquiry reveals commission of offence by ASI Sohan Lal or by any other police official and also abetment of the offence by the complainant, then a case should be registered and be proceeded in accordance with law. On the basis of the said order enquiry was conducted by DSP. DSP has found that accused had prepared wrong and incorrect record of statement of Hari Chand under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 17.5.2000 after his death as Hari Chand has already expired on 29.11.1999 as such accused has committed the offence punishable under Sections 219/193 and 109 IPC. On the basis of this enquiry report a case was registered. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the learned lower Court for trial. The petitioner was charge sheeted for commission of offence under Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined seven witnesses and closed the evidence. In his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure petitioner denied all the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded his false implication. However, no defence Crl. Revision No. 31 of 2011 (O&M) 3 evidence was led by him. The learned trial Court after hearing both the parties convicted and sentenced the petitioner as noticed above. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that prior sanction as required under Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure has not been obtained by the prosecution and as such the impugned judgments of the Courts below are liable to be set aside. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. I have given my careful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the considered opinion of this Court sanction under Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure is mandatory only when offence complained of has direct nexus to the discharge of official duty. Recording a statement of dead person cannot be attributed to discharge of public duty. However, in the present case the petitioner has recorded the statement of a person who has already died and it cannot be said that the recording of the statement of a dead person was integral part of official duty of the petitioner and as such there was no necessity to seek prior sanction for prosecution of the petitioner under Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The fact of recording of the statement of a dead person by the petitioner is not at all disputed by the petitioner. It is admitted case of the parties that Hari Chand died on 29.11.1999, whereas his statement is stated to have recorded by the petitioner on 17.5.2000 i.e. after about six months of the death of Hari Chand. Moreover, in his statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure the recording of the statement of Hari Chand by the petitioner is not denied by him. He has taken the stand that he had no mala fide intention. Both the Courts below after appreciating the evidence available on record have rightly convicted the petitioner for an offence under Section Crl. Revision No. 31 of 2011 (O&M) 4 218 of Indian Penal Code. After going through the records, I find that there is no illegality or infirmity in the findings of the Courts below which calls for interference by this Court. As a sequel of my above discussion, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (Alok Singh) Judge March 24, 2011 Anand