S.C.DAS., J. - (1.) THIS revisional application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 16.04.2004 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, West Tripura, Agartala(Court No.2), in Case No.C.R.1280 OF 2003.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel, Mr. P. Roy Barman appearing for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondent. The petitioner filed a criminal complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agartala, which was registered as C.R. case No.1280 of 2003, alleging that on 21.03.2003 at about 3.30 PM the accused-respondent, P.K. Mishra along with 5/6 others went to the shop of the petitioner and the accused disclosed his identity as Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and wanted to see the registers, balance sheets, etc., maintained in the shop and also to disclose the number of employees and to give in writing their names and addresses. Complainant produced the registers and balance sheets, etc., and also gave the names and addresses of his employees. The accused threatened him that he could send the complainant to the jail for six months and that unless the complainant gives him Rs.20,000/-(rupees twenty thousand) he will make an inquiry about the dealings of the complainant and the complainant will be in troubles. The companions of the accused-respondent also threatened the complainant. The complainant reported the matter to the West Agartala P.S. but no action was taken. Thereafter the complainant submitted the written complaint before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate alleging commission of offence punishable under Sections 143/149/447/506 of IPC read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It appears, the accused-respondent, on his appearance before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, submitted a petition on 15.07.2003 challenging the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that the accused petitioner was entitled to the protection prescribed under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. and that court cannot take cognizance of the offence without previous sanction of the Central Government as the accused-respondent was in discharge of official duty as a public servant appointed by the Central Government. Learned Magistrate by order dated 16.04.2004 accepted the contention of the accused-respondent and held that since sanction was not obtained from the appropriate authority the case was not maintainable and accordingly discharged the accused/respondent.
(3.) LEARNED counsel, Mr. P. Roy Barman has submitted that discharge of official duty and demand of bribe are completely distinct act committed by the accused and demand of bribe can in no way be said to be a part of the discharge of the official duty and therefore no sanction was necessary for taking cognizance against the accused respondent. It is also submitted that law has been settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions and under the facts and circumstances of the case the order passed by learned Magistrate was wrong and liable to be interfered. For ready reference let us reproduce here the relevant part of Section 197 of Cr.P.C. which runs as follows:- "197. Prosecution of Judges and public servants.- (1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction- (a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government; ��������.." Admittedly the accused-respondent was employed by the Central Government and he was in the discharge of his official duty on the date and time of occurrence while visiting the shop of the complainant-petitioner. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manohar Nath Kaul Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir reported in AIR 1983 SC 610 has held that Section 197 is designed to facilitate an effective and unhampered performance of official duty by public servants by making provision for scrutiny into allegations against them by superior authorities and prior sanction for prosecution as a condition precedent to the cognizance of cases against them by courts so that protection may be available from frivolous, vexatious or false prosecutions for offences alleged to have been committed by them while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their official duty.;