Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 946 (AP)

Madicharla Nageswara Sastry v. State of A. P.

2007-09-26

G.V.SEETHAPATHY

body2007
ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by petitioner-A.10 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in CC No.103 of 2005 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru, West Godavari district. 2. The petitioner-A.10 along with others is accused of offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 477-A r/w 109 and 120-B IPC and Section 69 of the Indian Stamps Act. The petitioner-A.10 worked as Sub Registrar at Akiveedu, A.1, A.9, A.12 and A.14 to A.18 are the licensed stamp vendors for the sale of non- judicial stamps and A.19 and A.20 are the un-licensed stamp vendors. The other accused worked as Sub Registrars at different places during the relevant period in 1995. According to the prosecution, the Government of Andhra Pradesh re-fixed the market value of the lands with effect from 1.4.1995 and the benefit of old market value for the purpose of registration was allowed to the transactions that took place up to 31.3.1995. It is alleged that the Stamp Vendors and Sub Registrars conspired together to gain monetary benefit and indulged in sale of stamps with anti-dates. The specific allegation against the Sub Registrars including the petitioner-A.10 is that they failed to verify/scrutinize the genuineness of the same, the date of entry of the sales register, date of purchase of the stamps from the Sub Treasury office and the date of sale to the parties and thereby failed to perform their legitimate duties and on the other hand actively connived with the stamp vendors and with the document writers with an intention to make wrongful gain to themselves and abused their official position as public servants for gaining pecuniary advantage which resulted in huge loss of revenue to the government. On the basis of the report of the enquiry by the then D.I.G. of Stamps, the District Registrar, Bheemavaram gave a complaint to C.I.D. police who registered a case in Cr.No.34 of 2000. On completion of the investigation, the Inspector of Police, CID, Vijayawada, filed charge sheet before the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance in CC No.103 of 2005 and issued process against the accused. On completion of the investigation, the Inspector of Police, CID, Vijayawada, filed charge sheet before the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance in CC No.103 of 2005 and issued process against the accused. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-A.10 who worked as Sub Registrar, Akiveedu, filed present petition seeking to quash the proceedings against him mainly on the ground that there was no sanction for prosecution as contemplated under Section 197 Cr.P.C. against him, who was a public servant. 3. Arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondents are heard. Records are perused. 4. It is not disputed that the petitioner-A.10 who was working as Sub Registrar, Akiveedu, at the relevant time, was a public servant within the meaning of Section 197 Cr.P.C. That apart, Section 70 of the Indian Stamps Act also bars the prosecution without sanction of the Collector or such other Officer of the State Government specifically authorized in that behalf. Section 70 of the Indian Stamps Act reads thus: "70. Institution and conduct of prosecutions: (1) No prosecution in respect of any offence punishable under this Act or any act hereby repealed, shall be instituted without the sanction of the Collector or such other officer as the state Government generally, or the Collector specially, authorizes in that behalf; (2) The Chief Controlling Revenue-Authority, or any officer generally or specially authorized by it in this behalf, may stay any such prosecution or compound any such offence; (3) The amount of any such composition shall be recoverable in the manner provided by section 48." 5. In 'Rakeshkumar Mishra Vs. State of Bihar & others', the Apex Court held as follows: 'Section 197 Cr.P.C. has to be construed strictly while determining its applicability to any act or omission in the course of service and where the act or omission performed by a public servant had reasonable connection with discharge of his duty, it must be held to be official. It was further held that 'the mandatory character of the protection afforded to a public servant is brought out by the expression "no court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction". It was further held that 'the mandatory character of the protection afforded to a public servant is brought out by the expression "no court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction". Use of the words "no" and "shall" make it abundantly clears that the bar on the exercise of power by the Court to take cognizance of any offence is absolute and complete. Very cognizance is barred. That is, the complaint cannot be taken notice of. According to Black's Law Dictionary the word "cognizance" means "jurisdiction" or "the exercise of jurisdiction" or "power to try and determine causes". In common parlance it means taking notice of. A court, therefore, is precluded from entertaining a complaint or taking notice of it or exercising jurisdiction if it is in respect of a public servant who is accused of an offence alleged to have been committed during the discharge of his official duty.' 6. The meaning and scope of the expression on 'official act or official duty' the Apex Court following the decision in 'B.Saha Vs. M.S.Kochar2' held as follows: "Official duty, therefore, implies that the act or omission must have been done by the public servant in the course of his service and such act or omission must have been performed as part of duty which further must have been official in nature. The section has, thus, to be construed strictly, while determining its applicability to any act or omission in the course of service. Its operation has to be limited to those duties which are discharged in the course of duty. But once any act or omission has been found to have been committed by a public servant in the discharge of his duty then it must be given liberal and wide construction so far its official nature is concerned. For instance a public servant is not entitled to indulge in criminal activities. To that extent the section has to be construed narrowly and in a restricted manner. But once it is established that an act or omission was done by the public servant while discharging his duty then the scope of its being official should be construed so as to advance the objective of the section in favour of the public servant. To that extent the section has to be construed narrowly and in a restricted manner. But once it is established that an act or omission was done by the public servant while discharging his duty then the scope of its being official should be construed so as to advance the objective of the section in favour of the public servant. Otherwise the entire purpose of affording protection to a public servant without sanction shall stand frustrated." It was therefore held in the above decision that if on facts, it is prima-facie found that the act or omission for which the accused was charged had reasonable connection with discharge of his duty, then it must be held to be official to which applicability of Section 197 Cr.P.C. cannot be disputed. 7. The above principle of law was reiterated by the Supreme Court in 'Sankaran Moitra Vs. Sadhna Das and another. 8. In the present case, the allegation against the petitioner-A.10 is that while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duties as Sub Registrar, he failed to properly scrutinize the stamp papers and the entries in the concerned registers to detect the anti-dated nature of the stamps. It cannot be disputed that scrutiny of the stamps and verification of the concerned registers formed part of the official duties of the petitioner- A.10. The alleged failure on his part to properly scrutinize the stamps and verify the registers is certainly an act or omission, which has reasonable connection with discharge of his official duty. Admittedly, the prosecution agency has not applied to the Government for sanction to prosecute the petitioner, who is a public servant, within the meaning of Section 21 IPC. Since no sanction order is obtained to prosecute the petitioner, the proceedings against him are liable to be quashed. It is not disputed that previously this Court by order dated 16.4.2007 allowed Crl.P.No.2007 of 2007 quashing the prosecution against A.6 who was also a Sub Registrar at Bheemavaram during the relevant period and the case of the petitioner-A.10 also stands on the same footing. 9. In the circumstances and for the reasons stated above, the prosecution against the petitioner-A.10 is liable to be quashed. 10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner-A.10 in CC No.103 of 2005 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru, are quashed.