Bansh Gopal v. Mool Chand Sharma — 1956 DIGILAW 459 (ALL)

JUDGMENT V.G. Oak, J. - This revision application raises the point whether the President of a Municipal Board is entitled to the protection u/s 197, CrPC. Bansh Gopal Misra filed a com plaint against Mool Chand Sharma and eight others with these allegations. There was enmity between Bansh Gopal complainant and Mool Chand Sharma accused No. 1 The complainant constructed a house after obtaining sanction from the Municipal Boad of Rath. The complainant is a resident of Rath in district Hamirpur. Mool Chand sharma, accused No. 1 is the President of the Municipal Board, Rath, district Hamirpur. One day in the complainant,s absence, accused No. l, with the assistance of other accused, demolished the complainant's house and forcibly removed articles from the house. Bansh Gopal, therefore, filed a compaint against the nine accused u/s 395, 427, 504, 506, 147 and 448, IPC. 2. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of Mool Chand Sharma accused No. 1 that he could not be prosecuted in the absence of a sanction u/s 197, CrPC. This objection was upheld by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Hamirpur. The complainant filed a revision before the learned Sessions Judge. But the revision application was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge of Hamirpur. Bansh Gopal Misra complainant has, therefore, come to this Court in revision. 3. The sole question argued by Sri S. N. Dwivedi for the applicant was whether the President of a Municipal Board is entitled to the protection of S. 197, CrPC. Sub-S.(l) of S. 197, Code of Criminal Procedure run thus: "When............any public servant who is not removable from his office save by of with the sanction of a State or the Central Government, is accused of any offence...... no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction: (a) in the case of a person employed in connection with the affairs of the Union, by the Central Government, and case(sic) of a person employed .ibn(sic) with the affairs of a State, of state(sic) Government." (sic)question is whether accused No. 1 as the President of the Municipal Board, Rath, was entitled to the protection u/s 197, CrPC. 4. Mr. Dwivedi conceded that, subject to the special contention to be noticed presently, the President of the Municipal Board in UP is a public servant u/s 197, CrPC. 4. Mr. Dwivedi conceded that, subject to the special contention to be noticed presently, the President of the Municipal Board in UP is a public servant u/s 197, CrPC. It was further conceded that the President of a Municipal Board in UP is not removable from his office except by or with the sanction of the State Government. So the main provision contained in Sub-section (1) of S. 197, Code of Criminal Procedure applies to the President of a Municipal Board: But Mr. Dwivedi contended that the latter part of S. 197(1), Code of Criminal Procedure does not apply to the present case. S. 197(1) lays down that public servants of a certain type cannot be prosecuted except with the sanction of certain competent authorities. Two separate authorities have been mentioned in Cls. (a) and (b) of Section 197(1). Cl. (a) deals with the Central Government and persons employed in connection with the affairs of the Union. Cl. (a) does not apply in the present case. Cl. (b) is: In the case of a person employed in connection with the affairs of a State, or the State Government." Mr. Dwivedi contended that the President of a Municipal Board is not a person employed in cennection with the affairs of a State. So Cl. (b) also does not apply. It was, therefore, argued that neither Cl. (a) nor Cl. (b) is applicable to the present case, and accused No. 1 is not entitled to protection u/s 197 (l),CrPC. 5. The first part of S. 197 (1) Code of Criminal Procedure has divided public servants into two groups. The first group consists of public servants, who are not removable save by or with the sanction of a State Government. The seeond group consists of public servants, who are not removable save by or with the sanction of the Central Government. The second part of Section 197(1) also consists of two groups of persons. The first group consists of persons employed in connection with the affairs of the Union. The second group consists of persons employed in connection with the affairs of a State. It will be noticed that the description of public servants given in the first part of S. 197(1) Code of Criminal Procedure is not identical with the description of persons given in the second part of S. 197(1). 6. If the contention of Mr. The second group consists of persons employed in connection with the affairs of a State. It will be noticed that the description of public servants given in the first part of S. 197(1) Code of Criminal Procedure is not identical with the description of persons given in the second part of S. 197(1). 6. If the contention of Mr. S. N. Dwivedi is accepted, the position would come to this. Although accused No. 1 is a public servant falling in the first part of S. 197 (1), CrPC, he is not a person described in the second part of S. 197 (1) CrPC. The result would be that there is no provision at all for the prosecution of such a public servant. The Legislature could not have intended to bring about such a strange result. The extraordinary position can be avoided by giving an extended meaning to the expression 'a person employed in connection with the affairs of State' used in Cl. (b) of S. 197(1), CrPC. 7. Techincally, the President of a Municipal Board in UP may not be a Government servant. But there should not be any serious difficulty in holding that, he is a person employed in connection with the affairs of a State. The expression 'affairs of a State' is elastic. The word 'State' itself does not always carry a fixed meaning. For certain purposes the word State means Government. But at times the word State is used in a wider sense. In Article 12 of the Constitution it has been stated that for purposes of part III of the Constitution, the word State included local authorities also. It is true that the Code of Criminal Procedure was enacted long before the framing of the Constitution. But the Legislature must have been aware that it is possible to use the expression 'affairs of State' in a wide sense. In a sense a person engaged in the affairs of a local authority is a person employed in connection with the affairs of a State. So exception (b) contained in S. 197 (1) will apply to such a person. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the President of a Municipal Board in UP is a public servant for purposes of S. 197(1), CrPC. He could not, therefore, be prosecuted in the absence of a sanction. 8. So exception (b) contained in S. 197 (1) will apply to such a person. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the President of a Municipal Board in UP is a public servant for purposes of S. 197(1), CrPC. He could not, therefore, be prosecuted in the absence of a sanction. 8. The view taken by the two lower courts that Mool Chand Sharma accused No. 1 could not be prosecuted in the absence of a sanction is correct. I may mention that there were as many as nine accused before the trial court. The final order of the learned Magistrate made on 21-5-56 was simply that the complaint should be filed. It is not clear whether it was intended that the criminal case should proceed against accused Nos. 2 to 9. However, the present applicant has impleaded Mool Chand Sharma alone in the present revision application. I, therefore, express no opinion whether the criminal case can proceed against the remaining acfused persons. 9. The revision application is dismissed.