Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1187 (GAU)

Abdul Rouf Barbhuiya v. Nidhiram Das

2017-08-28

HITESH KUMAR SARMA

body2017
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. This is a criminal revision petition, filed under section 397 of the Cr. PC, challenging the legality and propriety of the order, dated 9.3.2007, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi in CR Case No. 513/2006 under section 120B/406/409/420/477/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard Mr. N.S. Laskar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. I have perused the petition as well as the impugned order annexed with the petition. 4. The respondent 1 is the member of the Anchalik Panchayat, the respondent No. 2 is the Block Development Officer of Ramkrishna Nagar Block and respondent No. 3 is the Junior Engineer of Udharbond Development Block. 5. A complaint case was filed against the said respondents being CR Case No. 513/2006. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi, after hearing both the sides, kept the aforesaid criminal case pending till prosecution sanction against the accused-respondents is accorded. 6. I have meticulously gone through the order, dated 9.3.2007, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi, which is a detailed speaking order. It does not appear from the complaint petition that the accusation levelled against the accused-respondents are very specific, based on documents, and at the initial stage the complainant could not make out a case enabling the learned trial court to take cognizance. 7. Section 197 of the Cr. PC gives some protection to a public servant so as to see that they are not harassed on the basis of wild and unsubstantiated allegations. In the instant case, the accused-respondents are said to have misappropriated an amount of Rs. 2,40,000 in the year 2001 against certain schemes of the Government. There is no instance in the complaint specifically to say as to who allotted the fund and to whom it was allotted and against which scheme it was allotted and what is the amount which has been misappropriated, if any, and to that effect no record has been produced before the court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi. As against the allegation of forgery of some official documents by the accused-respondents, there is no specific materials brought out before the Court justifying taking cognizance without sanction under section 197 of the Cr. PC. 8. As against the allegation of forgery of some official documents by the accused-respondents, there is no specific materials brought out before the Court justifying taking cognizance without sanction under section 197 of the Cr. PC. 8. On the date, the order was passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi on 9-3.2007, since there was no materials before him to take cognizance of the offences alleged against the accused-respondents, and as according to him, sanction under section 197 of the Cr. PC is a must before proceeding against the accused-respondents as they are public servants. 9. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi, has narrated the facts leading to the case and requirement of the prosecution sanction under section 197 of the Cr. PC against the accused-respondents citing reasons therefore. 10. The allegations against the accused-respondents appear to be of general character and not specific against each individual accused-respondents. 11. The allegations also contains, as stated above, forging of documents by the accused-respondents, which the complainant-petitioner was suppose to establish, prima facie, before cognizance could be taken in the case against a public servant, which he could not do. 12. That being so, in the considered view of this court, there is no such illegality and impropriety in the order, dated 9.3.2007, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi in CR Case No. 513/2006 and particularly when he has not dismissed or disposed of the case by any other manner and has given chance to the prosecution to obtain necessary sanction. There cannot be prosecution against a public servant on unspecific allegations. 13. Sanction as against a public servant, in view of the nature of the allegations made in the complaint, appears to be necessary, in the considered view of this court also. Therefore, as said above, there is no illegality and impropriety in the order, dated 9.3.2007, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi in CR Case No. 513/2006. 14. Accordingly, the order is upheld and the revision petition stands dismissed. 15. Send down the LCR along with the copy of this judgment.