- (1.) The petitioner, at all material times a Minister in the Council of Ministers of this State, is sought to be prosecuted on a complaint filed by the present opposite party No. 1, before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, who after taking cognizance and examination of witnesses found that a prima facie case was made out against the petitioner under Ss.323/352/504/355, IPC and summons was issued accordingly. The substance of allegation made by the said opposite party was that on the 2nd February, 1987, at about 12-30 P.M. he, as the Secretary General of Federation of Association of Engineers and Technical Officers, West Bengal, along with some other representatives of the said association called on the Chief Engineer. P.W.D., Government of West Bengal in his chamber for making certain representation when the petitioner stormed into the chamber of the Chief Engineer and abused the said opposite party and his companions in filthy language and also threatened and subsequently pushed the said opposite party and some others and also assaulted them with fists and blows. The petitioner has come up in revision to quash the proceeding and the only ground pressed in support thereof was that the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has committed an error of law by taking cognizance although no previous sanction under S.197, Code of Criminal P.C. was obtained.
(2.) There was no controversy that a Minister is a public servant and for taking cognizance of an offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, sanction under S.197, Cr. P.C. would be necessary if it was found that the offence complained of was committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. Therefore, the short point which calls for adjudication is whether the alleged offences were committed by the petitioner while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty.
(3.) The scope of protection afforded by S.197, Cr. P.C. was laid down by the Supreme Court in several cases including Matajog Dobey v. H.S. Bhari, AIR 1956 SC 44 , quoted with approval by the same court in Balbir Singh v. D.N. Kadian, AIR 1986 SC 345 , in the following terms - (para 4) "There must be a reasonable connection between the act and the discharge of official duty; the act must bear such relation to the duty that the accused could lay a reasonable, but not a pretended or fanciful claim, that he did it in the course of the performance of his duty." These observations were also followed by the Supreme Court in Pukhraj v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1973 SC 2591 , facts of which have a striking resemblance to those of the case before us. In Pukhraj's case (supra) a Post Master General kicked and abused a clerk of the Head Post Office when the clerk made some oral representation to the Post Master General. The clerk filed a complaint against the Post Master General under Sections 323/504, IPC and it was held that the acts alleged were not done in due discharge of the official duty of the Post Master General and so no prior sanction under S.197, Criminal P.C. was necessary. In the case before us also it can be safely said that there is hardly any connection far less any reasonable connection between the acts alleged to have been done by the petitioner and the discharge of his official duty as a Minister and certainly he could not lay even a pretended or fanciful claim that what he did was in the course of the performance of his duty. Thus no question of obtaining any sanction under S.197, Criminal P.C. prior to the taking of cognizance could arise. The learned Advocate for the opposite party has also cited a decision of the Supreme Court in B.S. Sambhu v. T.S. Krishnaswamy, AIR 1983 SC 64 . In that case an application was made before a District Judge for transfer of a suit pending in the court of a Munsiff Magistrate and on being called by the District Judge for remarks regarding the allegations made in the transfer application, the Munsiff Magistrate in a letter to the District Judge described the advocate as a rowdy, a big gambler and a mischievious element. The letter was read in open court and the lawyer filed a criminal complaint against the Munsiff Magistrate without the sanction contemplated under S.197, Cr. P.C. In such circumstances even though the letter was undoubtedly written by the Munsiff-Magistrate to the District Judge in the discharge of his official duty, it was held that its offensive contents had no connection with the discharge of such duty. In this case also their Lordships referred to the decision in Pukhraj's case (1973 Cri LJ 1795) (SC) (supra) with approval.;