Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 6 (MP)

Vidya Shankar Chaturvedi v. Abhay Kumar Chopra

2015-01-05

ALOK VERMA

body2015
ORDER 1. This common order shall govern disposal of Criminal Revisions No.1275/2014 and 1276/2014. 2. Criminal Revision No.1275/2014 is directed against order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khachrod, District Ujjain in Criminal Revision No.360/2013 dated 26.7.2014 and Criminal Revision No.1276/2014 is directed against order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khachrod in Criminal Revision No.359/2013 dated 26.7.2014 In both the revisions one common and short question is involved. Respondent No1-Abhay Kumar Chopra filed two complaint cases against the present applicant who was working at the relevant time as Chief Municipal Officer of Municipality at Nagda. In both the complaints, it was stated that he committed serious financial irregularities in purchasing mobile toilet and also in publication of advertisement in daily newspaper “Raj Express” thereby caused loss to the municipality and committed an offence of criminal breach of trust. 3. The learned Magistrate by order dated 1.6.2013 in unregistered complaint case held that in an earlier order dated 4.12.2012, the complainant was directed to seek sanction of the State Government to prosecute the present applicant. However, no such sanction was obtained and, therefore, the learned Magistrate found that such a sanction is necessary to prosecute the present applicant under section 197 of CrPC and dismissed the complaint. Against this order, the respondent No.1 filed the revision in which without hearing the present applicant, the learned Additional Sessions Judge passed the impugned order, remanding the case back to the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class directing him to record statement of various witnesses before reaching to an inference that such a sanction is necessary under section 197 of CrPC. 4. Aggrieved by this order, the present revisions are filed in which moot questions for consideration are (i) whether without giving an opportunity to hear the present applicant such an order can be passed and (ii) secondly, whether additional statement of witnesses under sections 200 and 202 CrPC are necessary for deciding the question whether sanction under section 197 is required for prosecution of the present applicant. 5. So far as, the first question is concerned, it is trite law that once a complaint is dismissed against the proposed accused, a valuable right, accrues to him and no order against him can be passed without giving him an opportunity of hearing. 5. So far as, the first question is concerned, it is trite law that once a complaint is dismissed against the proposed accused, a valuable right, accrues to him and no order against him can be passed without giving him an opportunity of hearing. Admittedly, this order was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the present applicant and as such order is bad in law. Subsequently, so far as, the second question is concerned whether sanction of State Government to prosecute the present applicant is required, this is a question of law and as such does not require any oral evidence and only on the averments made in the complaint in respect of alleged irregularity committed by the present applicant, it is to be decided by the learned Magistrate whether any offence of criminal breach of trust was committed by the present applicant and, if so, whether any sanction is required to prosecute the present applicant. The directions issued by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for recording of additional witnesses are uncalled for and, therefore, I find that he erred while issuing such a direction to the learned Judicial Magistrate. 6. In this view of the matter, interference in the impugned judgment is called for. The revision deserves to be allowed and accordingly, allowed. The orders of the revisional Court passed in Criminal Revision No.360/2013 and Criminal Revision No.359/2013 are set aside. It is directed that the learned Additional Sessions Judge should decide the matter after giving an opportunity of hearing to the present applicant and also decide whether a sanction under section 197 CrPC to prosecute the present applicant is required, in view of the averments made in the complaint and statement of the complainant and other witnesses recorded by the revisional Magistrate under sections 200 and 202 CrPC. 7. Any proceedings taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in compliance of impugned order by learned Additional Sessions Judge passed in above criminal revisions are hereby quashed. The present applicant and the respondent No.1 is directed to appear before the revisional Court on 28.1.2015. Copy of this order be sent to the revisional Court immediately. 8. With that observations and directions, these revisions stand disposed of. Maqbool Ahmad Mansoori for applicant; Respondent present in person.