IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3605 of 2009() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26/06/2009 IN CMP 3711/2009 IN CC.376/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, CHENGANNUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- D.SUNIL , S/O. DIVAKARAN VALLIYIL HOUSE,ANGADICAL SOUTH MURI, CHENGANNUR VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.JOSEPH PAZHEPARAMBIL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SHIBU K.ITTY, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.ITTY, KOMALATH KIZHAKKETHIL, PUTHIYAKADAVU, MAVELIKKARA, MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR, CHENGANNUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. RITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: jma P.S.GOPINATHAN,J. --------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.3605 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of November, 2009 ORDER The revision petitioner filed a complaint against the first respondent and another as C.C.No.376 of 2007 before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Chengannur alleging offence under Sections 406 and 409 I.P.C. The first respondent was working as Motor Vehicle Inspector in the office of the Regional Transport Office, Chengannur. The other accused was working as Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector in the very same office. Inter alia, it was pleaded in the complaint that the first respondent had signed blank fitness certificate forms and had affixed the seal of the office and had thrown such signed blank forms in and around the office including the premises of the Regional Transport Office. It was further alleged that such signed blank forms with seal of the office would enable a person who get the same to make it as a fitness certificate and thereby to make unlawful gain to the said person and unlawful loss to the state, in addition to the consequences of allowing unfit vehicle to Crl.R.P.No.3605 of 2009 2 be run along the road. 2. First respondent filed a petition as C.M.P.No.3711 of 2009 seeking an order of discharge on ground that no sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was obtained to prosecute him. By the impugned order the learned magistrate found that the allegations made in the complaint had reasonable nexus with the discharge of the official duties of the first respondent. Hence, sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was necessary to prosecute the first respondent. But the revision petitioner had not obtained sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the above circumstance, while allowing the petition the first respondent was discharged under Section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Being aggrieved this revision petition was filed. 3. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, since the forms were not duly filled up, it could not be said that action of signing the blank forms and affixing the seal would form part of the discharge of the official duties. The Crl.R.P.No.3605 of 2009 3 learned public prosecutor submits that since the first respondent had affixed the seal of the office it could not be said that the action alleged had no nexus with the official duties and that signing of the official documents, though blank, is part of the discharge of official duties and that since the allegation in the complaint pertains to the signing of the official documents, the prosecution is bad for want of sanction under Section 197 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure. 4. Having heard either side and perusing the order impugned, I am unable to come to a conclusion that the offence alleged has no nexus with the official duties. It is rather difficult to conclude that the signing of fitness certificates, though blank is not part of the official duties. Unless otherwise proved, it had to be concluded that it is part of the discharge of official duties. The conclusion arrived by the learned magistrate that the offences alleged has nexus with the discharge of the official duties is in tune with the averments in the complainant. The learned magistrate is correct in arriving a conclusion that the prosecution is bad for want of sanction under Section 197 of Crl.R.P.No.3605 of 2009 4 the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is not at all vitiated by any error, illegality or impropriety. Hence, this revision petition is dismissed. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE skj.