- (1.) VINOD Prasad, J. Narendra Pratap Singh has filed this revision aggrieved by an order dated 3-8-2006 passed by Additional Judicial Magistrate, Saidpur, District Ghazipur in Criminal Case No. 4/xii/06, State through Narendra Pratap Singh v. Nisar Ahmad, under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. By the aforesaid order dated 3-8-2006 the Additional Judicial Magistrate, Saidpur has rejected the application filed by the present revisionist on the ground that his application is not maintainable being barred by Section 197 Cr. P. C.
(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that the revisionist Narendra Pratap Singh had filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. in the Court of ACJM, Saidpur, District Ghazipur with the allegations that he is the Head Master of Primary School, Bahriabad, District Ghazipur and he had a joint Account No. 4112 in the Kashi Gomti Sanyukt Gramin Bank Bahriabad. THE Government had sanctioned 1,82,000/- for construction of two rooms in the said schools. THE aforesaid account was operated by the revisionist Narendra Pratap Singh with the joint signature of Nisar Ahmad the village Pradhan. Under the joint signature Rs. 1, 10,000 were withdrawn from the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,82,000/- and the revisionist had invested Rs. 83,000 in the construction of the rooms and Rs. 10,000 was disbursed for giving wages to the Shiksha Mitra. THE village Pradhan Nisar Ahmad the named accused demanding Rs. 40,000 as commission, which was denied by the revisionist. THE said refusal resulted in threatening the revisionist by the said Pradhan through his henchman. THE aforesaid Pradhan Nisar Ahmad in connivance with Dr. Sunita Misra Assistant B. S. A. got Bhairo Nath Yadav an Assistant Teacher appointed for the construction of the rooms. THE aforesaid two persons had withdrawn Rs. 1,10,000 on 13-3- 2006, Rs. 72,000 on 20-3- 2006 and they misappropriated the same. Hence the revisionist had filed the application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. for embezzlement before the Magistrate. It transpires from the impugned order that the Magistrate rejected the said application of the revisionist on 3-8-2006 on the ground that sanction 197 Cr. P. C. is an impediment for directing registration of the FIR and investigation thereon, which order is under challenge in the present revision. I have heard Sri Shamim Ahmad learned Counsel for the revisionist as well as learned AGA at great length. Since at the stage of 156 (3) Cr. P. C. the accused has got no right to be heard, therefore, I do not consider it proper to issue notice to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 Nisar Ahmad and Bhairo Nath Yadav who are proposed accused persons and opposite parties in this revision.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the revisionist contended that the Magistrate has passed an illegal order by taking into consideration Section 197 Cr. P. C. at the stage of Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. He further contended that the impugned order is absolutely bad in law and deserves to be set aside. He further contended that Section 197 Cr. P. C. has got no application at all at the stage of 156 (3) Cr. P. C. Learned AGA on the other hand contended that the impugned order is absolutely justified and deserves to be upheld.;