- (1.) Invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioner has moved this Court for quashing of the charge under Section 417/419/420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code framed against him in connection with G.R. Case No. 679 of 2001 now pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Krishnanagar, Nadia.
(2.) The petitioner appearing in person in support of his prayer for quashing urged the following points; (a) Since he was an employee being a B.S.F. Constable, his prosecution for criminal offences, without the prior sanction of the concerned authority is illegal. (b) The petitioner is innocent and the allegations are absolutely false. (c) The impugned proceeding is continuing against the petitioner in violation of the decision of the Division Bench of this Honble High Court. On the other hand, Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State produced the Case Diary and submitted that none of the grounds urged by the present petitioner is tenable in law for quashing of charge. According to Mr. Ganguly, whether the petitioner is innocent or not and whether he has been falsely implicated in the case or not are purely the matter of trial and cannot be gone into by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. He further submitted that so far as the petitioner is concerned, he not being a public servant not removable from his office without the sanction of the Government, for his prosecution no sanction is necessary and the offence committed by the petitioner cannot be said to have been committed in discharge of his official duty. Mr. Ganguly further submitted that the contention of the petitioner that he was acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Firozpur for want of sanction is wholly irrelevant. According to him this Court is not bound by such decision of a subordinate Court and moreover in that case the petitioner was acquitted of a charge relating to an offence punishable under Official Secrets Act for want of prior sanction, since for prosecution of such offences, prior sanction was mandatory. Lastly, Mr. Ganguly submitted that the judgement of Division Bench of this High Court, referred by the petitioner has no relevance in this case. He further submitted in the said case the Division Bench upheld the judgement and order passed by a single Judge of this Court, whereby the petitioners dismissal from service was set aside. According to him the petitioner was dismissed from service on the grounds of misconduct, viz., he took financial assistance from the coy commandant by falsely claiming that he lost all his belongings and cash money while on transit and live cartridges were found in his possession while he was on leave. Mr. Ganguly vehemently contended the said decision has no bearing in the facts and circumstances of the present case. According to Mr. Ganguly sufficient materials have been collected by the police during investigation justifying his prosecution for the offences for which charge has been framed. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Union of India adopted the submissions of Mr. Ganguly and opposed the petitioners prayer for quashing.
(3.) I have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and perused the materials on record. I find that the submissions of Mr. Ganguly are wholly justified. He is absolutely correct the contention of the petitioner that he is innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case is essentially his defence and is a matter of trial. Similarly, the decision of the Division Bench of this Court has no bearing in the instant case. In the impugned proceedings the petitioner has been charged for offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code and the petitioner not having allegedly committed such offence during his official duty and not being a public servant who is not removable from his office without the prior sanction of the Government no sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is necessary. I further find that the petitioner was acquitted from a criminal case which relates to the offences punishable under the Official Secretes Act and under the said Act for prosecuting any person for any offence committed thereunder taking of prior sanction is mandatory. Therefore, the grounds on which the petitioner has sought for quashing of the impugned proceedings are not tenable in law.;