THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1892 of 2011 ORDER: Petitioner approached this Court with a prayer to set aside the order dated 11.02.2011 passed by the I-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in CCSR.No.539 of 2011, whereby an objection was raised as to how the complaint was maintainable without there being any sanction proceedings under Section 197 Cr.P.C.? The main allegation in the complaint filed by the petitioner/complainant runs as follows: “It is submitted that as the allocated funds are not utilized for the benefit of SCs and STs and as they are being diverted for other purposes, I got filed a writ in W.P.No.13696/2007 making all the accused as respondents. The 1st accused-Union of India filed a counter stating that they have allocated funds proportionate to their population i.e. 16.2% and 6.6% respectively for SCs and STs. Whereas the State Government filed a counter stating that the Central Government is not providing funds and clearly admitted that the funds are not utilized for promoting education and social interest of those people. The above writ petition has come up number of occasions before the Hon’ble High Court consisting of Hon’ble Chief Justice and other learned judge. Every time Government is seeking adjournment on one pretext or other. On number occasions the Hon’ble High Court directed the Government to file detailed statement in respect of expenditure for the allocated funds. It clearly shows that the State Government-Accused intentionally showing discrimination against the SCs & STs. On the other hand the Government and other District Collectors of each District-accused are trying to give false and frivolous information being public servants by using their lawful powers and causing injury and annoyance to the members of schedule casts and schedule tribes, which attracts offence under Section 3 (ix) of SC & STs (POA) Act 1989 and also being public servants willfully neglecting their duties required to be performed by them under the Act i.e. not allocating and using the allocated funds to the maximum for the benefit of SCs & STs, is nothing but neglecting their duties required to be performed by them under SCs & STs (POA) Act which is punishable under Section 4 of the above Act.” As seen from the record, it is the case of the complainant that the funds allotted by the Central Government to promote educational and social interest of SC & ST community people are not being utilized by the respondents/accused, who are the officials of State Government, in a proper manner. The complaint clearly reveals the act of the respondents/accused in derelicting their official duties in the capacity of Government officials and causing prejudice to SC & ST people. In such situation, sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C., to prosecute the respondents/accused, is necessary. Hence, the learned Magistrate rightly returned the complaint as stated above. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is not necessary at the time of taking cognizance of the offence and if at all it is required, that can be obtained at the time of framing of charges. It is settled preposition of law that if a Government official is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, then sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C., is necessary to take cognizance of the alleged offence against such Government official. In the case on hand, the complaint clearly reveals the act of the respondents/accused in derelicting their official duties in the capacity of Government officials. Hence, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order, dated 11.02.2011, passed by the I-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in CCSR.No.539 of 2011. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. However, if the petitioner so desires, he is at liberty to obtain sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C., by addressing a letter to the Government, and after obtaining such sanction, he can file the same before the concerned Court. ____________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 14.09.2011 v v