Research › Browse › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

1988 DIGILAW 178 (ORI)

SWAMI LAXMANANANDA SARASWAT v. STATE OF ORISSA

1988-07-11

K.P.MOHAPATRA

body1988
K. P. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) -THIS petition by the accused in G. R. Case No. 24 of 1987 (Trial No. 418 of 1987) pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, G. Udayagiri, for quashing the impugned order of cognizance taken against him for offences under sections 153a and 295a of I. P. C. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Sanyasi having his Ashram somewhere in Phulbani district. He is a member of Biswa Hindu Parishad. On some occasions be delivered speeches in meetings in some villages preceding in favour of Hinduism and speaking against Christianity. He said in such meetings that the churches constructed in several villages should be destroyed and christian preachers should not be allowed to enter into villages. He also spoke defamatory words against Christianity. On the ground that he was preaching hatred amongst the people of different religions. So as to outrage religious feelings of different sections of people prejudicial to national integration, F. I. R. was lodged against him by the Officer-in-charge of G. Udayagiri Police Station and after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against him for having commit offences under sections 153a and 295a of Indian Penal Code. On receipt of the charge- sheet, the learned Judicial Magistrate, as referred to above, took cognizance of the offences. ( 3 ) MR. A. K. Bose, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, raised a legal ground stating that before submitting charge-sheet against the petitioner, sanction of the State Government under section 196 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not obtained, and so in the absence of sanction, taking of cognizance was abuse of the process of the Court. Mr. Indrajit Roy, learned Additional Government Advocate verified the lower court records which had been called for and submits that the records do not disclose that sanction for prosecution had been obtained before launching the same by submission of charge-sheet. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to section 196 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under sections 153a and 295a of Indian Penal Code except with the previous sanction of the Central or the State Government, as the, case may be. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to section 196 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under sections 153a and 295a of Indian Penal Code except with the previous sanction of the Central or the State Government, as the, case may be. In this case it is clear that no sanction of State Government was obtained and so in accordance with provisions of section 196 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Judicial Magistrate could not, according to law have taken cognizance of the offences against the petitioner. If the order of cognizance without being supported by the order of sanction of the State Government is allowed to stand, there shall be abuse of the process of the Court. ( 5 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, in exercise of powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to prevent abuse of the process of the Court, the order of cognizance is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed. The criminal revision accordingly succeed. THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1988 (No. 32 of 1988) [2sth May 1988] An Act further to amend the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Be it enacted by Parliament in the Thirty ninth Year of the Republic of India as, follows: 1. Short title- This Act may be called the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1988. 2. THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1988 (No. 32 of 1988) [2sth May 1988] An Act further to amend the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Be it enacted by Parliament in the Thirty ninth Year of the Republic of India as, follows: 1. Short title- This Act may be called the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1988. 2. Amendment of section 105- In section 105 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), (a) in sub-section (1) for the portion beginning with the words issued by if and ending with the words in the said territories, the following shall be substituted, namely: issued by it shall be served or executed at any place, (1) within the local jurisdiction of a Court in any State or area in India outside the said territories, it may send such summons or warrant in duplicate by post or otherwise, to the presiding officer of that Court to be served or executed; and where any summons referred to in clause (a) or clause (c) has been so served, the provisions of section 68 shall apply in relation to such summons as if the presiding officer of the Court whom it is sent were a Magistrate in the said territories; (2) in any country or place outside India in respect of which arrangements have been made by the Central Government with the Government of such country or place for service or execution of summons or warrant in relation to criminal matters (hereafter in this section referred to as the contracting State), it may send such summons or warrant in duplicate in such form, directed to such Court, Judge or Magistrate, and sent to such authority for transmission, as the Central Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf; (b) in sub-section (2),- (1) for the words issued by a Court in any State or area in India outside the said territories, it shall cause the same to be served or executed, the following shall be substituted, namely: issue by (i) a Court in any State or area in India outside the said territories; (ii) a Court, Judge or Magistrate in a contracting State, (II) it shall cause the same to be served or executed; (ii) the following proviso shall be inserted at the end, namely: Provided that in a case where a summons or search warrant received from a contracting Stale has been executed, the documents or things produced or things found in the search shall be forwarded to the Court issuing the summons or search warrant through such authority as the Central Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf. THE CUSTOMS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1988 (No. 27 of 1988) [l8th May, 1988] Act further to amend the Customs Act, An 1962. Be it enacted by Parliament in the Thirty-ninth Year of the Republic of India as follows: 1. Short title and commencement (1) This Act may be called the Customs (Amendment) Act, 1988. (2) It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint. 2. Amendment of section 14-In section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), (a) in sub-section (1); (i) in clause (a), the brackets and letter (a) shall be omitted; (ii) clause (b) shall be omitted; (b) after sub-section (1), the following subsection shall be inserted, namely: (la) Subject to the provisions of subsection (1), the price referred to in that sub-section in respect of imported goods shall be determined in accordance with the rules made in this behalf. ; (c) in sub-section (2), after the words, brackets and figure in sub-section (1), the words, brackets, figure and letter or sub-section (1a) shall be inserted. 3. Amendment of section 156- In section 156 of the principal Act, in sub-section (2), for clause (a), the following clause shall be substituted, namely: (a) the manner of determining the price of imported goods under sub-section (1 A) of section 14;.