Chhittarpal Singh vs State of Rajasthan and Another

Shyam Sunder Byas, J.—By this application u/s 482 Cr. PC the accused challenges the validity of the order dated March 17, 1982 by which the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Binswara took cognizance of the offence u/s 161 IPC against him.

I have heard the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, I have also gone through the case file.

It was contended by Mr. Mathur at the thresh-hold of his arguments that the cognizance of the offence u/s 161 IPC cannot be taken against the accused without the requisite sanction u/s 197 Cr. PC or u/s 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. It was argued that the accused was a Veterinary Surgeon holding the gazetted post. Since no sanction was obtained, the action of the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence u/s 161 IPC is wholly illegal and unsustainable. The contention has considerable force.

Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 Fays down in explicit terms that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable u/s 161 IPC except with the previous sanction of the authority competent to remove the accused from the office. The provisions of Section 6 are imperative and mandatory. No exception can be taken to this statutory provision. Admittedly, no previous sanction was taken to prosecute the accused for an offence u/s 161 IPC. As such the learned Magistrate was not competent to take cognizance of the offence u/s 161 IPC, against the accused. The impugned order is, therefore, invalid and cannot be sustained.

In the result, this application u/s 482 Cr. PC is allowed and the impugned order dated 17-3-82 passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Banswara is set aside.