Judgment:
ORDER
Deoki Nandan Prasad, J.
1. This application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the criminal proceeding including the order of cognizance dated 26.9.1998 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in connection with Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 513 of 1997 (G.R. No. 2199/97).
2. Short facts giving rise to this application that one Criminal Case was registered for the offence under Sections 419/420/ 467/468/465/408/120B of the Indian Penal Code. On the basis of the inquiry report submitted by the petitioner who is the informant in the said case, it was alleged that the petitioner was Accounts Officer under Mineral Area Development Authority, Dhanbad (MADA) to make an inquiry about illegal withdrawal of a sum of Rs. 20,000/-from the Provident Fund Account of one employee, namely Sampat Kumar Singh, Pump Khalashi. On the basis of which the petitioner inquired into the matter and submitted his report claiming therein that one Gauri Shankar Prasad who was Assistant in the Provident Fund Section was the real culprit as he had withdrew the said amount of Rs. 20,000/-. There was also found that the Account Payee cheque was converted into bearer cheque as a result of which the said amount was withdrawn. Accordingly the first information was lodged.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the learned court below illegally took cognizance against the petitioner also without application of mind and also under most mechanicalmanner. It is further argued that the petitioner is a Govt. servant and even in absence of sanction as required under Section 197 of the Cr PC, the learned Magistrate took cognizance illegally as well as there is nothing specific against the petitioner that he had participated or involved in any way in the withdrawal of the said amount rather the petitioner, after completing inquiry, submitted his report being informant. It is further argued that as a matter of fact the main culprit is Gouri Shankar Prasad who has also deposited the said amount of Rs. 20,000/- with interest in the Provident Fund Account of victim Sampat Kumar Singh and as such the entire prosecution as against the petitioner including taking cognizance is illegal and it is fit to be quashed,
4. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. also conceded in course of argument that the petitioner was the inquiry officer who submitted his report, on the basis of which this First Information Report was lodged.
5. Obviously this petitioner being the Accounts Officer inquired into the matter as per direction by the Managing Director of MADA. It further appears that the prosecution cast: including the order taking cognizance dated 26.9.1998 as against the other accused Biresh Chandra Sinha has already been quashed by this Court vide Cr. Misc. No. 979 of 1999 (R). Oil perusal of the case diary and also the material available on the record, there is nothing specific against the petitioner to show that the petitioner had actually withdrawan a sum of Rs. 20,000/-rather the petitioner, after due inquiry found the allegation correct against the other accused. Gauri Shankar Prasad and Biresh Chandra Sinha. It is true that there was a signature of this petitioner as Accounts Officer on the cheque in which there was also a signature of the Secretary MADA over the said bearing cheque but nothing to show that the petitioner had acted in any way in withdrawing the said amount. The allegation made in the First Information Report even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the petitioner.
6. Apart from this, the petitioner is admittedly a Govt. servant being Accounts Officer but there was no sanction as required under Section 197 of the Cr PC which makes out the whole case illegal as cognizance wastaken in mechanical manner in absence of sanction which is mandatory in nature.
7. In the case of State through C.B.I. v. B.L. Verma and Anr., reported in 1997 (1) Supreme Court Cases page 772, the Apex Court observed as follows :
'The expression' no court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction under Section 197, Cr PC unmistakable shows that the bar on the exercise of powers by the court to take cognizance is mandatory and the previous sanction from the competent authority for prosecution of the public servant, who is accused of having committed an offence either in the execution of his duties is essential to take cognizance.'
8. In this back ground of settled principles of law, the order dated 26.9.1998 taking cognizance against the petitioner cannot be held to be legal and good.
9. Having regard to the above facts andcircumstance coupled with the discussionsmade here-in-above, I find that there is meritin this application which is accordingly allowed. Thus the entire criminal prosecutionincluding the order taking cognizance dated26.9.1998 as against this petitioner ishereby quashed.
10. Application allowed.