Gyanendra Kumar, J. - (1.) This is a revision against the order of a Magistrate first class, Agra, dated September 9, 1965, dismissing the complaint of the applicant on the ground that the complainant had not obtained the requisite sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. ft. prosecuting the two accused, who are admittedly officers of the Income-tax Department. The complaint was to the effect that these officers had cheated him in the manner described in the complaint and had also committed forgery by obtaining his signature on a document written in English, representing that it was his application for grant of Rs. 10,000/- to him for the marriage of his daughter, while in fact it was not so.
(2.) The learned Magistrate by his order dated June 28, 1965 had summoned both the accused under Sections 420 and 469 I.P.C. On appearing in court the accused persons filed a written objection, inter alia, saying that the complaint was incompetent for want of requisite sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. which plea, as stated above, was accepted by the trial Magistrate, who dismissed the complaint by his order dated September 9,1965 and discharged both the accused. Thereafter the complainant went to the learned Sessions Judge, who dismissed the revision by his order dated February 5,1966; hence the instant petition to this Court.
(3.) Mr. Deoki Nandan appearing for the complainant applicant has placed reliance on Satwant Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 SC 266 . In para 16 their Lordships have observed that "some offences cannot by their very nature be regarded as having been committed by public servants, while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their official duty. For instance, acceptance of a bribe ........ is one of them and the offence of cheating or abetment thereof is another. We have no hesitation in saying that where a public servant commits the offence of cheating or abets another so to cheat, the offence committed by him is not one while he is acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, as such offences have no necessary connection between them and the performance of the duties of a public servant, the official status furnishing only the occasion or opportunity for the commission of the offences." In the instant case, it was not only for an offence under Section 420 I.P.C. that the accused were summoned by the Magistrate, but they were also called upon to answer a charge under Section 469 I.P.C. i.e. forgery which could obviously be committed in the purported discharge of their official duty. A plain reading of the complaint and the statement of the complainant recorded at its back reveals that an additional offence of forgery was also alleged to have been committed by the accused, purporting to act in the discharge of their official duty. That being so, it was necessary for the complainant to have obtained the requisite sanction of the Central Government before lodging a complaint against the accused officers. Moreover, it is not a fit case for interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction.;