K.S.Tiwana, J. - (1.) The facts leading to this revision are that Surjit Singh complainant filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Zira, against Dr. Mohan Lal Jaiswal and Dr. Amarjit Singh posted in Civil Hospital at Zira, stating that he was caused injuries by Jit Singh and Dalip Singh on 19th Sept., 1972. He went to Civil Hospital at Zira for medical examination where Dr. Mohan Lal Jaiswal, petitioner, demanded Rs. 300.00 as fee prescribed by the Government. After some hesitation he parted with the money demanded by Dr. Mohan Lal Jaiswal and he was medically examined. No receipt for this money was issued to him. The complainant demanded a copy of the medico legal report which too was not supplied. The complainant was kept admitted in the hospital for about a month After his discharge from the hospital he again could not get the copy of the medico legal report inspire of his approach to the Court. At the time of receiving injuries he had lost his two teeth from the lower jaw. After X-ray examination the complainant came to know that the loss of the teeth has not been mentioned in the medico legal report. He then filed the said complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ziia.
(2.) After recording the preliminary evidence on 4th Nov., 1972, the learned Judicial Magistrate summoned the petitioners under sections 420, 506, 193, 166, 201, 341 and 218 of the Indian Penal Code. On appearance before the Court, the petitioners filed an application that they were gazetted officers in the Government of Punjab and were removables from service only by the State Government. They also laced a plea that no prosecution under section 21S of the Indian Penal Code could be launched against them without obtaining the sanction for their prosecution from the Government as envisaged by section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Then the learned trial Magistrate after hearing the parties wrote a quite lengthy order against the petitioners and dismissed their application. Revision filed by the petitioners in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepore, also met the same fate. The present revision is directed by the petitioners under section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, for quashing the order dismissing their application.
(3.) I have heard the counsel for the parties at some length. Sec. 218 of the Indian Penal Code reads as under:- "Whoever, being a public servant, and being as such public servant, charged with the preparation of any record or other writing, frames that record or writing in a manner which he knows to be incorrect, with intent to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, loss or injury to the public or to any person, or with intent thereby to save, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save, any person from legal punishment or with intent to save, or knowing that he is likely thereby to save, any property from forfeiture of other change to which it is liable by law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.";