- (1.) BY Court: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
(2.) PETITIONER is aggrieved by the order dated 18.2.2003 passed by Sri M. K. Tripathi, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gumla, in G.R. No.639 of 1992, whereby the application filed for discharge under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C., was rejected by the Court below. It appears that the petitioner has been made accused in G.R. Case No. 639 of 1992 for the offence under Sections 409, 420, 120B, 465, 468, 471/34 of the I.P.C. There is allegation against the petitioner in the FIR that two trucks were apprehended, which were illegally carrying Kendu leaves and so far as the petitioner is concerned, there is allegation against the petitioner, who was posted as Range Officer in the Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation, to have exchanged of permits for illegally carrying the Kendu leaves, which were found to be forged. The FIR was lodged by the informant Range Officer of the Forest Department, stating that he was following the said trucks and he saw the petitioner, who came in the Maruti Van along with other persons, who were not identified by the informant, and he exchanged of permits with respect to the Kendu leaves. Subsequently, the trucks were apprehended and the permits, which were seized, were found to be forged. On the basis of these allegations, the FIR was lodged. After investigation, the police submitted the charge- sheet against the petitioner also and cognizance was also taken against the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter filed application for discharge under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C., which was rejected by the Court below holding that there were materials against the petitioner in the case diary for framing the charge under the aforesaid sections.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has taken a short point for pressing the application, submitting that the petitioner is a public servant and accordingly, his actions are protected under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., but no Sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C was obtained for prosecution of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his arguments to this sole point and has submitted that in view of the non-obtaining of the sanction for prosecution of the petitioner, the petitioner being the public servant, ought to have been discharged. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further pointed out that the enquiry report dated 5.1.1993, which has been brought on record as Annexure­12 to the Supplementary Affidavit, shows that in the departmental proceeding, the petitioner was exonerated of the charge mainly on the ground that there was no shortage of stock of the Kendu leaves in the godown, of which the petitioner was in charge, as also in view of the fact that on the date of occurrence, the petitioner was on leave and he was under medical treatment. However, it appears from this enquiry report also that permits were found to be forged.;