Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2352 (RAJ)

Sohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2011-11-04

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - The present misc. petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners assailing the order dated 29.06.2006 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) & Judicial Magistrate, First Class No.3, Jodhpur in Criminal Case No. 196/2006 (State v. Sohan Lal and Another) , whereby, cognizance has been taken against the petitioners and seeking quashing of the proceedings undertaken against the petitioners for offences under Sections 295A and 153A of the IPC. 2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the misc. petition are that a FIR was registered at Police Station. Udaimandir, Distt. Jodhpur based on an enquiry report of the S.P., C.I.D. (C.B.), Jodhpur dated 17.04.2006 addressed to the SHO, Police Station Udaimandir to the effect that the author namely Sohan Lal had written a book titled" os 'keZ ls fgUnw dgrs gSa D;ksa\ " 3. It was mentioned in the report that the contents of the book are promoting enmity between the two communities on the ground of hurting religious feelings etc. and was prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony. On a bare reading of the book, strife was being spread amongst the Hindu Community. It was also mentioned in the report that as per the State Government's letter dated 25.04.2006, all the copies of the book and the material used for printing of the book were directed to be forfeited by the State Government. Certain extracts of the book have been quoted, which as per the complaint were hurting the feelings of the Hindu Community as a whole. On the basis of the report, FIR No.196/2006 was registered at the Police Station Udaimandir, Jodhpur through the Circle Inspector, Shri Chandan Singh against the petitioner No.1 being author of the book and the petitioner No.2 being the owner of the Rajasthani Granthagaar the Publisher of the book. The report was registered as FIR No. 196/2006 for the offences under Sections 295-A and 153-A IPC. 4. On the basis of report, investigation was commenced. A copy of the book was seized and ultimately a charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioners for offences under Sections 295-A and 153-A I.P.C. and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences. 5. 4. On the basis of report, investigation was commenced. A copy of the book was seized and ultimately a charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioners for offences under Sections 295-A and 153-A I.P.C. and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences. 5. Assailing the order taking cognizance, learned counsel for the petitioners Shri K.S. Rathore has raised two grounds for the purpose of canvassing the arguments that all the proceedings against the petitioners are illegal and amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. He submits that firstly the book was admittedly published in the year 1996 and the complaint has been filed in the year 2006. He has placed on record a letter dated 18.9.1998 showing the receipt of this book in the President's House and disclosing that the book has been placed in the library of the President's House. Based on this contention, it has been submitted that the offences for which the complaint was filed were punishable with maximum imprisonment of three years and, as such, by virtue of provisions under Section 468 Cr.P.C., no cognizance could have been taken against the petitioners because the period of limitation for taking cognizance for the offences punishable with maximum imprisonment up to three years as per the provisions contained in Section 468 Cr.P.C. 6. Secondly, learned counsel submits that by virtue of Section 196 (1) (a) Cr.P.C.. cognizance for the offences under Sections 295-A and 153-A I.P.C. can only be taken after obtaining the previous sanction of the Central Government or the State Government as the case may be. He submits that admittedly, no such sanction has been taken and, thus, the cognizance order and all other subsequent proceedings are vitiated. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the misc. petition and submits that in this case, though the book was published in the year 1996 but since every circulation of the book reveals a fresh cause of action, therefore, offences for which, the cognizance has been taken are continuing offences and the constraints of limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. would not apply to the present case. However, he is not in a position to refute the fact that the sanction as mandated under Section 196 (1) (a) Cr.P.C. has not been taken in this case by the Investigating Officer before filing of the charge-sheet. 8. However, he is not in a position to refute the fact that the sanction as mandated under Section 196 (1) (a) Cr.P.C. has not been taken in this case by the Investigating Officer before filing of the charge-sheet. 8. I have perused the order impugned and the record of the case, which has been summoned from the Court below. 9. The misc. petition can be decided on the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding lack of sanction being fatal to the prosecution. Undisputedly as per the provisions of Section 196 (1) (a) Cr.P.C., prior to taking cognizance for offences under Sections 495-A and 153-A I.P.C., it is mandatory that the sanction of the Central Government or the State Government as the case may be has to be obtained. In the present case, no such sanction has been taken by the prosecution prior to filing of the charge-sheet against the petitioners. 10. A perusal of the charge-sheet and the record reveals that no such sanction exists on the record for permitting the prosecution of the petitioners, as such, the order taking cognizance against the petitioners for offences under Sections 495-A and 153-A I.P.C. cannot be sustained as the same is hit by vice of lack of sanction. 11. Accordingly, this misc. petition is allowed. The order dated 29.6.2006 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) and Judicial Magistrate, First Class No. 3, Jodhpur in Criminal Case No. 196/2006 (State v. Sohan Lal and another) taking cognizance against the petitioners and all other subsequent proceedings thereto are quashed and set aside.Petition allowed. *******