HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Referred Judgements :-
STATE V. HEERA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)THIS is a revision application by one Rahima against the order of the-Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur, dated 6. 11. 67, upholding the order of the Magistrate First Class, Bhim, dated 20. 1. 67.
(2.)THE facts giving rise to this application may be briefly stated as follows: The Up-Zila Vikas Adhikari, Udaipur, sent a report dated 19. 7. 65 to the Assistant Secretary, Enquiry Wing (Panchayat) Rajas-than, Jaipur, to the effect that on 6. 5. 65 Shri B. K. Binju, Up-Zila Vikas Adhikari, made an inspection of the Panchayat and found that a cash balance of Rs. 580. 02 P. was shown in the cash book, but when the-cash was checked, the said amount was not found at the office. The petitioner, who was Sarpanch at that time, was reported to have informed the Inspecting Officer that the said amount was placed at his house and he sent one man to bring it from that place. When that man did not return by the time the inspection was over, the Inspecting Officer went to the petitioner's house and when the petitioner was called upon to show that amount, he expressed his inability and told the Inspecting Officer that he had converted it to his own use. It was requested that action be taken against the Sarpanch under Section 17 (4) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyay Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961. A copy of this report was also sent to the Superintendent of. Police, Udaipur, with a request that an investigation may be directed forthwith and the Sarpanch be prosecuted for criminal breach of trust. This report was forwarded to the Station House Officer, Bhim. After investigation, the Investigating Officer presented what is known as a "final report" before the Munsiff Magistrate, Bhim, on the ground that the State had not granted sanction for prosecution of accused Rahima. After perusing that report, the Magistrate passed an order on 20. 1. 67 to the effect that the sanction of the State for Rahima's prosecution under Section 409, I. P. C. was not necessary and he directed the Circle Officer, Bhim, to put up a challan against the accused Rahima for an offence under Section 409 I. P. C. within ten days. Aggrieved by this order, accused Rahima presented a revision application which was heard by the Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur. Three points were raised on behalf of the accused before the said Court. It was firstly argued that the Magistrate was wrong in holding that no sanction was necessary. It was next urged that the refusal of the Government to grant sanction for the prosecution of the accused amounted to withdrawal of prosecution under Section 494 Criminal P. C. Lastly, it was contended that the Magistrate had no authority to direct the police to submit a challan. All the three contentions were repelled by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the revision was dismissed. It is against this order that the present application is directed.
(3.)LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has not pressed" in this Court the first two points which were raised before the Additional Sessions Judge, He has confined his arguments to the question that on receipt of a final report the Magistrate had no authority to direct the police to put up a challan. It is also contended that the view expressed by the Additional Sessions Judge on the strength of a decision of this Court in State v. Heera 1965 Raj LW 352 : AIR 1966 Raj 233, no longer holds good because of the pronouncement of their Lordships of the Supreme Court to the contrary in Abhinadan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.