H.R. Sodhi, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision application filed by Mehan Ram a brick -kiln contractor of Patiala,praying that the order dismissing his complaint against Shri M P. Mitra District Excise and Taxation Officer, Patiala, now Chief Enforcement Officer, passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Patiala, on 2nd July, 1966, be set aside. The complaint was dismissed on the ground that sanction under Section 497, Criminal Procedure Code, was necessary and in the absence of that the Court could not take cognisance of the alleged offences The Petitioner is an Assessee under the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the Act), and some arrears of tax were due from him. He was arrested by Vidya Sagar, Taxation Inspector, Iqbal Singh T.S.I, and Kishan Chand, Peon of the Staff of the District Excise and Taxation Officer, under warrant of arrest issued by the Respondent. On arrest, the Petitioner was immediately sent to the civil prison Patiala on the same day where he was detained till 5.00 p.m. but later released on his having paid a part of the arrears due from him. He claimed that certain appeals against the assessment orders were pending before the appellate authority, but this is not a point which is material for the disposal of the present petition.
(2.) THE grievance of the Petitioner is that he could not be detained in civil prison at Patiala and could only be kept under personal restraint by the Respondent. A complaint was filed by the Petitioner against Vidya Sagar, Iqbal Singh and Kishan Chand under Section 342, Indian Penal Code, and it ended in the conviction of Iqbal Singh and Kishan Chand, whereas Vidya Sagar was acquitted by an order of the Magistrate passed on 8th April, 1965. The Magistrate in his judgment observed that Shri M. P. Mitra Respondent acted with undue haste in directing the arrest of the Petitioner without giving him reasonable time to pay the amount due from him. Another irregularity pointed out was that Shri M P. Mitra should not have committed the Petitioner to civil prison and he could keep him only under a personal restraint. He went to the extent of saying that Shri Mitra acted with biased mind and the blame for the arrest of the Petitioner lay at his door. A reference in this connection was made to the abortive attempt of the Petitioner to obtain sanction of the State Government for prosecuting Shri Mitra for a similar offence under Section 342, Indian Penal Code. Since no sanction could be had. the Petitioner then filed the present complaint on 18th January, 1966. The Respondent was summoned as an accused person by an order of the Court dated 13th May, 1966 A question was raised before the trial Magistrate that the latter could not take cognisance of the offence, if any, as no sanction contemplated under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code, had been obtained by the complainant. Section 197 of the Code is in the following terms: 197. (1) When any person who is a Judge within the meaning of Section 19 of the Indian Penal Code, or when any Magistrate, or when any public servant who is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government or the Central Government, is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognisance of such offence except with the previous sanction (a) in the case of a person employed in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government ; and (b) in the case of a person employed in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Government. (2) The Central Government or the State Government as the case may be, may determine the person by whom, the manner in which, the offence or offences for which, the prosecution of such judge Magistrate or public servant is to be conducted, and may specify the Court before which the trial is to be held.
(3.) THE trial Magistrate came to the conclusion that sanction was necessary and the complaint was accordingly dismissed. The Petitioner then filed a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, who concurred with the conclusion of the Magistrate and refused to recommend the case to this Court. Hence the present revision petition.;