Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1034 (RAJ)

Padam Singh : State v. State

2004-07-22

N.N.MATHUR

body2004
JUDGMENT 1. - By way of instant revision petition under Sections 397/401 Cr.PC. the petitioner has challenged the order of the Sessions Judge, Churu dated 3.12.2002 whereby he allowed the revision and quashed the order dated 9 2002 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu taking cognizance against the respondents for offence under Section 500 and 501 IPC. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner herein submitted a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu stating inter alia that the Newspapers viz. Churu Kesari and Rashtra-Doot published a news item in their newspaper dated 23.9.2001 to the effect that the petitioner, Private Secretary of the former Health Minister and presently member of Legislative Assembly Sh. Rajendra Singh, was absconder from army. He was also charged for obtaining job on the basis of a forged secondary certificate. On the basis of that complaint the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu by order dated 9.1.2002 took cognizance against the respondents for offences under Sections 500 and 501 IPC. The said order was challenged by the respondents before the learned Sessions Judge, Churu. The revisional court allowed the petition on a short ground that in view of the Rule 23 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Rules of 1971") the complaint was not maintainable without sanction of the State Government. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel that the finding of the learned Sessions Judge based on Rule 23 of the Rules of 1971 is vitiated as an explanation appended to the said Rule has not been taken into consideration. It would be apt to read Rule 23 which has a bearing on the controversy involved in the said case. The Rule 23 of the Rules of 1971 reads as under: "23. Vindication of acts and character of Government Servants. -No Government servant shall, except with the previous sanction of Government, have recourse to any court or to the press for the vindication of any official act which has been the subject matter of adverse criticism or an attack of defamatory character. Explanation - Nothing in this rule shall limit or otherwise effect the right of any Government servant to vindicate his private acts or character. 4. Explanation - Nothing in this rule shall limit or otherwise effect the right of any Government servant to vindicate his private acts or character. 4. A bare reading of Rule 23 shows that the Government servant is forbidden to have recourse to any court or to the press for the vindication of any official act which has been the subject matter of adverse criticism or an attack of defamatory character without previous sanction of the Government. However, the explanation provides that the said prohibition will not be attracted in a case where the Government servant is required to vindicate his private act or character. 5. In the present case the petitioner herein has been described as an absconder from the Army. There is also an allegation that he has got employment on the basis of forged secondary certificate. Consequently, it cannot be said to have connection with official duties as otherwise there is no adverse criticism of his official work. Thus, I am of the view that the explanation contained in Rule 23 is attracted in this case. Thus, the learned Sessions Judge has committed manifest error in rejecting the complaint for want of sanction as required by the Rule 23 of the Rules of 1971. 6. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The order of the Sessions Judge, Churu dated 3.12.2002 is quashed and set aside. The record of the case be returned forthwith.Petition allowed. *******