Sanjay Kumar Prasad vs State Of Jharkhand

The lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding, which has been held through video conferencing today at 11.00 A.M. They have no complaint in respect to the audio and video clarity and quality.

The petitioner is challenging the order dated 18.01.2017, passed in G.R. No. 259 of 2016, whereby the application for discharge of the petitioner was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate, Jashedpur.

Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred criminal revision before the Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur being Cr. Revision No. 108 of 2017. Vide order dated 24.02.2018, the Sessions Judge also dismissed the revision application of the petitioner. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the revisional order.

Challenging these two orders, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The ground for challenging the same is that without obtaining sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C., the court below could not have taken cognizance and could not have directed to frame charge against the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner is a public servant and working in a Post Office, sanction ought to have been taken before proceeding. He further submits that from the entire allegation, it would be clear that there is no material against this petitioner and it is one Suparna Paul, who is the main accused and cheated the investors. He submits that said Suparna Paul had authority to withdraw the amount and thus, the amount was disbursed to her. He further submits that whether Suparna Paul has misappropriated the entire amount or not, and the said liability cannot be shifted upon the petitioner.

Learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer.

The allegation in the FIR is that one Suparna Paul, who is the agent, withdrawn money on behalf of the depositors from the post office and thereafter, misappropriated the same. There is allegation against the officials of the Postal Department that they connived with said Suparna Paul and assisted her in withdrawing money. This petitioner is one of the Assistant in the Post Office.

While going through both the impugned orders, I find that both the courts below, i.e. the trial court and the revisional court had considered all the aspects and contention raised by the petitioner in detail and passed a detailed order. Why the provision of Section 197 Cr.P.C. would not be applicable, has also been mentioned in the impugned orders. There is allegation of fraud against the petitioner. Fraud is committed in personal capacity and not in official capacity. Thus, there is no application of Section 197 Cr.P.C.

Since, there is no irregularity, illegality and perversity in the impugned orders, I am not inclined to exercise my jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. where there is concurrent finding of both the courts below. Thus, this application stands dimissed.