LAKSHMANSINGH HIMATSINGH VAGHELA Vs. NARESH KUMAR CHANDRASHANKER JAH
LAWS(SC)-1990-7-14
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: GUJARAT)
Decided on July 24,1990

LAKSHMANSINGH HIMATSINGH VAGHELA Appellant
VERSUS
NARESH KUMAR CHANDRASHANKER JAH Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

MOGILI CHINNA BALAIAH VS. K SAMBA MURTHY [LAWS(APH)-1999-4-92] [REFERRED TO]
P V G K S SASTRY VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2005-7-56] [REFERRED TO]
RAMRAJ PRASAD KARSOLIYA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2001-1-16] [REFERRED TO]
SAKTHIVEL VS. MURUGESA SUNDARA PANDIYAN [LAWS(MAD)-1992-12-12] [REFERRED TO]
RAJKUMAR ANANDILAL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2005-9-46] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL KUMAR SAHA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1997-12-42] [REFERRED TO]
REETHA ANTO VS. ROMEO JACOB [LAWS(KER)-2007-9-86] [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB STATE WAREHOUSING CORP. VS. BHUSHAN CHANDER [LAWS(SC)-2016-6-26] [REFERRED TO]
PRABIR CHOWDHURY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1998-3-55] [REFERRED TO]
UPS MADAN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR [LAWS(BOM)-2019-4-210] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED VS. PRAMOD V. SAWANT [LAWS(SC)-2019-8-66] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Fathima Beevi, J. - (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court holding that sanction of the State Government as required under S. 197, Cr.P.C., is not necessary for taking cognizance of the offences against the appellant on the basis of the complaint filed by the respondent. The appellant is an employee of the Municipal Corporation, Ahmedabad. While holding the post of Laboratory Officer, the State Government by a Notification dated 21-12-1966 under S. 8 of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 appointed the appellant as a Public Analyst for the local area comprised within the limits of the Corporation. The complaint was filed by the respondent before the Magistrate for the offences punishable under Ss. 465, 468 and 201, I.P.C., alleged to have been committed by the appellant while exercising the functions as Public Analyst.
(3.)The appellant moved the High Court under S. 482, Cr.P.C., for quashing the criminal proceedings on the ground that, he being a public servant removable from office only by the State Government the Magistrate could not take cognizance of the offence alleged to have been committed while discharging the duties as Public Analyst without the requisite sanction under S. 197, Cr.P.C. The High Court rejected this contention and dismissed the petition.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.