Balraj Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.

Decided On : Jan-20-2009

Court : Rajasthan

Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]
Code Context


$shops2 = $shops['topics'];
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Balraj Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr. Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Section 482 Cr',
			(int) 1 => 'Section 27',
			(int) 2 => 'Section 279 IPC',
			(int) 3 => 'Section 197 Cr',
			(int) 4 => 'Section 197',
			(int) 5 => 'Section 197',
			(int) 6 => 'Section 197 Cr',
			(int) 7 => 'Section 197 Cr',
			(int) 8 => 'Section 197 Cr',
			(int) 9 => 'Section 482',
			(int) 10 => 'Section 197',
			(int) 11 => 'Section 197 Cr',
			(int) 12 => 'Section 482 Cr',
			(int) 13 => 'Section 197',
			(int) 14 => 'Section 482',
			(int) 15 => 'Section 482',
			(int) 16 => 'Section 197 Cr',
			(int) 17 => 'Section 197',
			(int) 18 => 'Section 482 Cr'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Kishan Swaroop Chaudhari',
			(int) 1 => 'Charanjeet Singh',
			(int) 2 => 'Kishan Singh',
			(int) 3 => 'Balraj Singh',
			(int) 4 => 'Babu Ram',
			(int) 5 => 'Kishan Singh',
			(int) 6 => 'Kishan Singh',
			(int) 7 => 'Babu Ram',
			(int) 8 => 'Chandra',
			(int) 9 => 'Anr',
			(int) 10 => 'Anr',
			(int) 11 => 'L.R.',
			(int) 12 => 'Chandra Jew',
			(int) 13 => 'Sankaran Moitra',
			(int) 14 => 'Anr',
			(int) 15 => 'L.R.',
			(int) 16 => 'Cri',
			(int) 17 => 'Parveen Sultana v. State',
			(int) 18 => 'Anr',
			(int) 19 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 20 => 'Counsel',
			(int) 21 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 22 => 'Counsel',
			(int) 23 => 'Natwar Lal v. State',
			(int) 24 => 'Chandra Jew',
			(int) 25 => 'Natwar Lal's'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'J.1'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 1 => 'Cr',
			(int) 2 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 3 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 4 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 5 => 'Cr',
			(int) 6 => 'Orissa',
			(int) 7 => 'Harish',
			(int) 8 => 'Chandra',
			(int) 9 => 'Mohitra',
			(int) 10 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 11 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 12 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 13 => 'Harish',
			(int) 14 => 'Chandra',
			(int) 15 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 16 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 17 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 18 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 19 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 20 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 21 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 22 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 23 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 24 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 25 => 'P.C.'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '1.5.2006',
			(int) 1 => '307',
			(int) 2 => '365',
			(int) 3 => '323',
			(int) 4 => '324',
			(int) 5 => '341',
			(int) 6 => '427',
			(int) 7 => '166',
			(int) 8 => '167',
			(int) 9 => '120',
			(int) 10 => '2',
			(int) 11 => '6.12.2002',
			(int) 12 => 'three',
			(int) 13 => '200',
			(int) 14 => '202',
			(int) 15 => '2',
			(int) 16 => '2004CriLJ2011',
			(int) 17 => '295.7',
			(int) 18 => '8/2009',
			(int) 19 => '1970CriLJ1401',
			(int) 20 => '399',
			(int) 21 => '2'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Babu Ram',
			(int) 1 => 'Public Prosecutor',
			(int) 2 => 'Learned Counsel',
			(int) 3 => 'the State Government',
			(int) 4 => 'State Government',
			(int) 5 => 'Sessions Court',
			(int) 6 => 'the State Government',
			(int) 7 => 'Learned Counsel',
			(int) 8 => 'Hon'ble Supreme Court',
			(int) 9 => 'Court:(i',
			(int) 10 => 'CBI',
			(int) 11 => 'SC',
			(int) 12 => 'Apex Court',
			(int) 13 => 'Bhagwan Prasad Srivastava v. N.P. Misra',
			(int) 14 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 15 => 'Court',
			(int) 16 => 'Orissa High Court',
			(int) 17 => 'the SD4M',
			(int) 18 => 'SDJM',
			(int) 19 => 'Court'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'two months',
			(int) 1 => '18 days',
			(int) 2 => '1988',
			(int) 3 => '2006',
			(int) 4 => '2864/2007'
		),
		'PRODUCT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Sadhna Das',
			(int) 1 => 'Sections 397'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'first'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '754623',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Balraj Singh',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Balraj Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Natwar Lal v. State and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2009-01-20',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Kishan Swaroop Chaudhari, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Kishan Swaroop Chaudhari, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 1.5.2006 by which cognizance was taken against petitioner and other accused persons under Sections 307, 365, 323, 324, 341, 427, 166, 167, 120-B IPC and Section 27, Arms Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Charanjeet Singh, husband of respondent No. 2 filed a complaint and alleged that he along with Kishan Singh was coming on 6.12.2002 in pickup vehicle, they were stopped by petitioner Balraj Singh, S.H.O. along with other police personnels, who were on spot in three vehicles. Petitioner abused him and when he requested the petitioner not to abuse him, petitioner asked other accused-persons to damage complainant's vehicle, other accused-persons damaged the complainant's vehicle and petitioner and Babu Ram be laboured to the complainant and Kishan Singh, and later on, complainant and Kishan Singh sat in their vehicle and started it, then petitioner fired on the jeep by his revolver, which did not hit them and later on petitioner asked Babu Ram to fire and at the petitioner's instance Babu Ram fired by his rifle and cartridge hit complainant, he fell down, then he was got admitted in hospital by the petitioner and other accused-persons. Later on, complainant came to know that he has been falsely implicated in excise case. On this complaint, statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded and cognizance against the petitioner and other accused-persons were taken as mentioned above by impugned order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, respondent No. 2 and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that impugned order is without jurisdiction as previous sanction was not taken from the State Government under Section 197 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance and further submitted that this complaint was filed after two months and 18 days of alleged incident, and petitioner and other accused persons have been convicted under Section 279 IPC and 19/54 Excise Act, hence, petition may be accepted and impugned order be quashed. On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondent submitted that previous sanction of State Government was not necessary for prosecuting the petitioner, and further submitted that without filing revision against the impugned order before Sessions Court, this petition is not maintainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The short point involved in this petition is whether in view of Section 197 Cr.P.C., previous sanction of the State Government was necessary before taking cognizance against the petitioner S.H.O., who is public servant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on following judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and of this Court:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) Harish Chandra and Anr. v. CBI and Anr. 1988 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 136,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) State of Orissa and Ors. V. Ganesh Chandra Jew : 2004CriLJ2011 ,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Sankaran Moitra v. Sadhna Das and Anr. 2006 Cr.L.R. (SC) 295.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In Harish Chandra's case (supra), it was held that where there is reasonable connection between the act and duties of police officer, order of taking cognizance is not sustainable in absence of sanction for prosecution. I agree with the principle laid down in aforesaid judgment but it is to be seen by the trial court whether there is reasonable connection between the act and duties of the petitioner or not. Apex Court has held in Criminal Appeal No. 8/2009 @ S.L.P. (Cri.) No. 2864/2007, Choudhary Parveen Sultana v. State of West Bengal and Anr. decided on 7.1.2009 that public servant can face prosecution without prior sanction of the appropriate authorities. All acts done by a public servant in the purported discharge of his official duties cannot be brought under the protective umbrella of Section 197 Cr.P.C. There can be cases of misuse and abuse of powers vested in a public servant which can never be a part of his official duties. In this case, Sankra Mohitra's case (supra) cited by learned Counsel for the petitioner has been considered and after following Bhagwan Prasad Srivastava v. N.P. Misra reported in : 1970CriLJ1401 held that all acts done by a public servant in the purported discharge of his official duties cannot as a matter of course be brought under the protective umbrella of Section 197 Cr.P.C. and further held that if the authorities vested in a, public servant is misused for doing things which are not otherwise permitted under the law, no protection can be demanded by public servant under Section 197 Cr.P.C. It was further observed that in order to apply bar of Section 197 Cr.P.C., each case has to be considered in its own facts situation in order to arrive at a finding as to whether the protection of Section 197 Cr.P.C. could be given to the public servant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Thus, it becomes clear that arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioner that no cognizance can be taken against a public servant without sanction Of the Government for committing any offence while acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duties Is devoid of force and each case has to be considered in its own facts situation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In Harish Chandra's case (supra), order passed by the learned Magistrate taking cognizance was challenged by filing separate applications under Sections 397 and 399 Cr.P.C. and when revision was dismissed, proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. were filed. In the present case, petitioner neither raised plea of Section 197 Cr.P.C. before the court taking cognizance nor filed revision against the impugned order assailing it on the ground of Section 197 Cr.P.C. but has filed directly petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which is not maintainable as per law laid down by this Court in Natwar Lal v. State and Ors. . In para 2 of State of Orissa and Ors. V. Ganesh Chandra Jew (supra), it has been mentioned that Orissa High Court at the first instance permitted the appellants to make submissions before the SD4M but the SDJM took the view that there is no necessity for sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C., petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed. In the present case, petitioner has neither approached to the court taking cognizance nor to the revisional court. In the aforesaid case, it was observed that exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be in very rare cases and in the light of the aforesaid observation, this is not a fit case in which proceedings can be quashed at this stage for want of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. and at this stage, it would not be proper on the part of this Court to go on merits of the case whether sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is required or not because If any observation is made, it will prejudice rights of the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thus, the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. However, the petitioner may approach the court taking cognizance or may assail the impugned order before the revisional court-as held in Natwar Lal's case (supra).<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2009CriLJ2042; RLW2009(1)Raj824',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '754623'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Balraj Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr. Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Section 482 Cr',
		(int) 1 => 'Section 27',
		(int) 2 => 'Section 279 IPC',
		(int) 3 => 'Section 197 Cr',
		(int) 4 => 'Section 197',
		(int) 5 => 'Section 197',
		(int) 6 => 'Section 197 Cr',
		(int) 7 => 'Section 197 Cr',
		(int) 8 => 'Section 197 Cr',
		(int) 9 => 'Section 482',
		(int) 10 => 'Section 197',
		(int) 11 => 'Section 197 Cr',
		(int) 12 => 'Section 482 Cr',
		(int) 13 => 'Section 197',
		(int) 14 => 'Section 482',
		(int) 15 => 'Section 482',
		(int) 16 => 'Section 197 Cr',
		(int) 17 => 'Section 197',
		(int) 18 => 'Section 482 Cr'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Kishan Swaroop Chaudhari',
		(int) 1 => 'Charanjeet Singh',
		(int) 2 => 'Kishan Singh',
		(int) 3 => 'Balraj Singh',
		(int) 4 => 'Babu Ram',
		(int) 5 => 'Kishan Singh',
		(int) 6 => 'Kishan Singh',
		(int) 7 => 'Babu Ram',
		(int) 8 => 'Chandra',
		(int) 9 => 'Anr',
		(int) 10 => 'Anr',
		(int) 11 => 'L.R.',
		(int) 12 => 'Chandra Jew',
		(int) 13 => 'Sankaran Moitra',
		(int) 14 => 'Anr',
		(int) 15 => 'L.R.',
		(int) 16 => 'Cri',
		(int) 17 => 'Parveen Sultana v. State',
		(int) 18 => 'Anr',
		(int) 19 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 20 => 'Counsel',
		(int) 21 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 22 => 'Counsel',
		(int) 23 => 'Natwar Lal v. State',
		(int) 24 => 'Chandra Jew',
		(int) 25 => 'Natwar Lal's'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'J.1'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 1 => 'Cr',
		(int) 2 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 3 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 4 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 5 => 'Cr',
		(int) 6 => 'Orissa',
		(int) 7 => 'Harish',
		(int) 8 => 'Chandra',
		(int) 9 => 'Mohitra',
		(int) 10 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 11 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 12 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 13 => 'Harish',
		(int) 14 => 'Chandra',
		(int) 15 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 16 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 17 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 18 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 19 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 20 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 21 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 22 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 23 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 24 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 25 => 'P.C.'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1.5.2006',
		(int) 1 => '307',
		(int) 2 => '365',
		(int) 3 => '323',
		(int) 4 => '324',
		(int) 5 => '341',
		(int) 6 => '427',
		(int) 7 => '166',
		(int) 8 => '167',
		(int) 9 => '120',
		(int) 10 => '2',
		(int) 11 => '6.12.2002',
		(int) 12 => 'three',
		(int) 13 => '200',
		(int) 14 => '202',
		(int) 15 => '2',
		(int) 16 => '2004CriLJ2011',
		(int) 17 => '295.7',
		(int) 18 => '8/2009',
		(int) 19 => '1970CriLJ1401',
		(int) 20 => '399',
		(int) 21 => '2'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Babu Ram',
		(int) 1 => 'Public Prosecutor',
		(int) 2 => 'Learned Counsel',
		(int) 3 => 'the State Government',
		(int) 4 => 'State Government',
		(int) 5 => 'Sessions Court',
		(int) 6 => 'the State Government',
		(int) 7 => 'Learned Counsel',
		(int) 8 => 'Hon'ble Supreme Court',
		(int) 9 => 'Court:(i',
		(int) 10 => 'CBI',
		(int) 11 => 'SC',
		(int) 12 => 'Apex Court',
		(int) 13 => 'Bhagwan Prasad Srivastava v. N.P. Misra',
		(int) 14 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 15 => 'Court',
		(int) 16 => 'Orissa High Court',
		(int) 17 => 'the SD4M',
		(int) 18 => 'SDJM',
		(int) 19 => 'Court'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'two months',
		(int) 1 => '18 days',
		(int) 2 => '1988',
		(int) 3 => '2006',
		(int) 4 => '2864/2007'
	),
	'PRODUCT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Sadhna Das',
		(int) 1 => 'Sections 397'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'first'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '754623',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Balraj Singh',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Balraj Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Natwar Lal v. State and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2009-01-20',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Kishan Swaroop Chaudhari, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Kishan Swaroop Chaudhari, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 1.5.2006 by which cognizance was taken against petitioner and other accused persons under Sections 307, 365, 323, 324, 341, 427, 166, 167, 120-B IPC and Section 27, Arms Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Charanjeet Singh, husband of respondent No. 2 filed a complaint and alleged that he along with Kishan Singh was coming on 6.12.2002 in pickup vehicle, they were stopped by petitioner Balraj Singh, S.H.O. along with other police personnels, who were on spot in three vehicles. Petitioner abused him and when he requested the petitioner not to abuse him, petitioner asked other accused-persons to damage complainant's vehicle, other accused-persons damaged the complainant's vehicle and petitioner and Babu Ram be laboured to the complainant and Kishan Singh, and later on, complainant and Kishan Singh sat in their vehicle and started it, then petitioner fired on the jeep by his revolver, which did not hit them and later on petitioner asked Babu Ram to fire and at the petitioner's instance Babu Ram fired by his rifle and cartridge hit complainant, he fell down, then he was got admitted in hospital by the petitioner and other accused-persons. Later on, complainant came to know that he has been falsely implicated in excise case. On this complaint, statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded and cognizance against the petitioner and other accused-persons were taken as mentioned above by impugned order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, respondent No. 2 and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that impugned order is without jurisdiction as previous sanction was not taken from the State Government under Section 197 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance and further submitted that this complaint was filed after two months and 18 days of alleged incident, and petitioner and other accused persons have been convicted under Section 279 IPC and 19/54 Excise Act, hence, petition may be accepted and impugned order be quashed. On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondent submitted that previous sanction of State Government was not necessary for prosecuting the petitioner, and further submitted that without filing revision against the impugned order before Sessions Court, this petition is not maintainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The short point involved in this petition is whether in view of Section 197 Cr.P.C., previous sanction of the State Government was necessary before taking cognizance against the petitioner S.H.O., who is public servant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on following judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and of this Court:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) Harish Chandra and Anr. v. CBI and Anr. 1988 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 136,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) State of Orissa and Ors. V. Ganesh Chandra Jew : 2004CriLJ2011 ,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Sankaran Moitra v. Sadhna Das and Anr. 2006 Cr.L.R. (SC) 295.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In Harish Chandra's case (supra), it was held that where there is reasonable connection between the act and duties of police officer, order of taking cognizance is not sustainable in absence of sanction for prosecution. I agree with the principle laid down in aforesaid judgment but it is to be seen by the trial court whether there is reasonable connection between the act and duties of the petitioner or not. Apex Court has held in Criminal Appeal No. 8/2009 @ S.L.P. (Cri.) No. 2864/2007, Choudhary Parveen Sultana v. State of West Bengal and Anr. decided on 7.1.2009 that public servant can face prosecution without prior sanction of the appropriate authorities. All acts done by a public servant in the purported discharge of his official duties cannot be brought under the protective umbrella of Section 197 Cr.P.C. There can be cases of misuse and abuse of powers vested in a public servant which can never be a part of his official duties. In this case, Sankra Mohitra's case (supra) cited by learned Counsel for the petitioner has been considered and after following Bhagwan Prasad Srivastava v. N.P. Misra reported in : 1970CriLJ1401 held that all acts done by a public servant in the purported discharge of his official duties cannot as a matter of course be brought under the protective umbrella of Section 197 Cr.P.C. and further held that if the authorities vested in a, public servant is misused for doing things which are not otherwise permitted under the law, no protection can be demanded by public servant under Section 197 Cr.P.C. It was further observed that in order to apply bar of Section 197 Cr.P.C., each case has to be considered in its own facts situation in order to arrive at a finding as to whether the protection of Section 197 Cr.P.C. could be given to the public servant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Thus, it becomes clear that arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioner that no cognizance can be taken against a public servant without sanction Of the Government for committing any offence while acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duties Is devoid of force and each case has to be considered in its own facts situation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In Harish Chandra's case (supra), order passed by the learned Magistrate taking cognizance was challenged by filing separate applications under Sections 397 and 399 Cr.P.C. and when revision was dismissed, proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. were filed. In the present case, petitioner neither raised plea of Section 197 Cr.P.C. before the court taking cognizance nor filed revision against the impugned order assailing it on the ground of Section 197 Cr.P.C. but has filed directly petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which is not maintainable as per law laid down by this Court in Natwar Lal v. State and Ors. . In para 2 of State of Orissa and Ors. V. Ganesh Chandra Jew (supra), it has been mentioned that Orissa High Court at the first instance permitted the appellants to make submissions before the SD4M but the SDJM took the view that there is no necessity for sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C., petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed. In the present case, petitioner has neither approached to the court taking cognizance nor to the revisional court. In the aforesaid case, it was observed that exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be in very rare cases and in the light of the aforesaid observation, this is not a fit case in which proceedings can be quashed at this stage for want of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. and at this stage, it would not be proper on the part of this Court to go on merits of the case whether sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is required or not because If any observation is made, it will prejudice rights of the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thus, the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. However, the petitioner may approach the court taking cognizance or may assail the impugned order before the revisional court-as held in Natwar Lal's case (supra).<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2009CriLJ2042; RLW2009(1)Raj824',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '754623'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]
Code Context
//$shops = $shops['entities'];

foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Balraj Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr. Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Section 482 Cr',
			(int) 1 => 'Section 27',
			(int) 2 => 'Section 279 IPC',
			(int) 3 => 'Section 197 Cr',
			(int) 4 => 'Section 197',
			(int) 5 => 'Section 197',
			(int) 6 => 'Section 197 Cr',
			(int) 7 => 'Section 197 Cr',
			(int) 8 => 'Section 197 Cr',
			(int) 9 => 'Section 482',
			(int) 10 => 'Section 197',
			(int) 11 => 'Section 197 Cr',
			(int) 12 => 'Section 482 Cr',
			(int) 13 => 'Section 197',
			(int) 14 => 'Section 482',
			(int) 15 => 'Section 482',
			(int) 16 => 'Section 197 Cr',
			(int) 17 => 'Section 197',
			(int) 18 => 'Section 482 Cr'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Kishan Swaroop Chaudhari',
			(int) 1 => 'Charanjeet Singh',
			(int) 2 => 'Kishan Singh',
			(int) 3 => 'Balraj Singh',
			(int) 4 => 'Babu Ram',
			(int) 5 => 'Kishan Singh',
			(int) 6 => 'Kishan Singh',
			(int) 7 => 'Babu Ram',
			(int) 8 => 'Chandra',
			(int) 9 => 'Anr',
			(int) 10 => 'Anr',
			(int) 11 => 'L.R.',
			(int) 12 => 'Chandra Jew',
			(int) 13 => 'Sankaran Moitra',
			(int) 14 => 'Anr',
			(int) 15 => 'L.R.',
			(int) 16 => 'Cri',
			(int) 17 => 'Parveen Sultana v. State',
			(int) 18 => 'Anr',
			(int) 19 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 20 => 'Counsel',
			(int) 21 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 22 => 'Counsel',
			(int) 23 => 'Natwar Lal v. State',
			(int) 24 => 'Chandra Jew',
			(int) 25 => 'Natwar Lal's'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'J.1'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 1 => 'Cr',
			(int) 2 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 3 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 4 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 5 => 'Cr',
			(int) 6 => 'Orissa',
			(int) 7 => 'Harish',
			(int) 8 => 'Chandra',
			(int) 9 => 'Mohitra',
			(int) 10 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 11 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 12 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 13 => 'Harish',
			(int) 14 => 'Chandra',
			(int) 15 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 16 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 17 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 18 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 19 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 20 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 21 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 22 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 23 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 24 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 25 => 'P.C.'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '1.5.2006',
			(int) 1 => '307',
			(int) 2 => '365',
			(int) 3 => '323',
			(int) 4 => '324',
			(int) 5 => '341',
			(int) 6 => '427',
			(int) 7 => '166',
			(int) 8 => '167',
			(int) 9 => '120',
			(int) 10 => '2',
			(int) 11 => '6.12.2002',
			(int) 12 => 'three',
			(int) 13 => '200',
			(int) 14 => '202',
			(int) 15 => '2',
			(int) 16 => '2004CriLJ2011',
			(int) 17 => '295.7',
			(int) 18 => '8/2009',
			(int) 19 => '1970CriLJ1401',
			(int) 20 => '399',
			(int) 21 => '2'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Babu Ram',
			(int) 1 => 'Public Prosecutor',
			(int) 2 => 'Learned Counsel',
			(int) 3 => 'the State Government',
			(int) 4 => 'State Government',
			(int) 5 => 'Sessions Court',
			(int) 6 => 'the State Government',
			(int) 7 => 'Learned Counsel',
			(int) 8 => 'Hon'ble Supreme Court',
			(int) 9 => 'Court:(i',
			(int) 10 => 'CBI',
			(int) 11 => 'SC',
			(int) 12 => 'Apex Court',
			(int) 13 => 'Bhagwan Prasad Srivastava v. N.P. Misra',
			(int) 14 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 15 => 'Court',
			(int) 16 => 'Orissa High Court',
			(int) 17 => 'the SD4M',
			(int) 18 => 'SDJM',
			(int) 19 => 'Court'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'two months',
			(int) 1 => '18 days',
			(int) 2 => '1988',
			(int) 3 => '2006',
			(int) 4 => '2864/2007'
		),
		'PRODUCT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Sadhna Das',
			(int) 1 => 'Sections 397'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'first'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '754623',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Balraj Singh',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Balraj Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Natwar Lal v. State and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2009-01-20',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Kishan Swaroop Chaudhari, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Kishan Swaroop Chaudhari, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 1.5.2006 by which cognizance was taken against petitioner and other accused persons under Sections 307, 365, 323, 324, 341, 427, 166, 167, 120-B IPC and Section 27, Arms Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Charanjeet Singh, husband of respondent No. 2 filed a complaint and alleged that he along with Kishan Singh was coming on 6.12.2002 in pickup vehicle, they were stopped by petitioner Balraj Singh, S.H.O. along with other police personnels, who were on spot in three vehicles. Petitioner abused him and when he requested the petitioner not to abuse him, petitioner asked other accused-persons to damage complainant's vehicle, other accused-persons damaged the complainant's vehicle and petitioner and Babu Ram be laboured to the complainant and Kishan Singh, and later on, complainant and Kishan Singh sat in their vehicle and started it, then petitioner fired on the jeep by his revolver, which did not hit them and later on petitioner asked Babu Ram to fire and at the petitioner's instance Babu Ram fired by his rifle and cartridge hit complainant, he fell down, then he was got admitted in hospital by the petitioner and other accused-persons. Later on, complainant came to know that he has been falsely implicated in excise case. On this complaint, statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded and cognizance against the petitioner and other accused-persons were taken as mentioned above by impugned order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, respondent No. 2 and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that impugned order is without jurisdiction as previous sanction was not taken from the State Government under Section 197 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance and further submitted that this complaint was filed after two months and 18 days of alleged incident, and petitioner and other accused persons have been convicted under Section 279 IPC and 19/54 Excise Act, hence, petition may be accepted and impugned order be quashed. On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondent submitted that previous sanction of State Government was not necessary for prosecuting the petitioner, and further submitted that without filing revision against the impugned order before Sessions Court, this petition is not maintainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The short point involved in this petition is whether in view of Section 197 Cr.P.C., previous sanction of the State Government was necessary before taking cognizance against the petitioner S.H.O., who is public servant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on following judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and of this Court:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) Harish Chandra and Anr. v. CBI and Anr. 1988 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 136,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) State of Orissa and Ors. V. Ganesh Chandra Jew : 2004CriLJ2011 ,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Sankaran Moitra v. Sadhna Das and Anr. 2006 Cr.L.R. (SC) 295.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In Harish Chandra's case (supra), it was held that where there is reasonable connection between the act and duties of police officer, order of taking cognizance is not sustainable in absence of sanction for prosecution. I agree with the principle laid down in aforesaid judgment but it is to be seen by the trial court whether there is reasonable connection between the act and duties of the petitioner or not. Apex Court has held in Criminal Appeal No. 8/2009 @ S.L.P. (Cri.) No. 2864/2007, Choudhary Parveen Sultana v. State of West Bengal and Anr. decided on 7.1.2009 that public servant can face prosecution without prior sanction of the appropriate authorities. All acts done by a public servant in the purported discharge of his official duties cannot be brought under the protective umbrella of Section 197 Cr.P.C. There can be cases of misuse and abuse of powers vested in a public servant which can never be a part of his official duties. In this case, Sankra Mohitra's case (supra) cited by learned Counsel for the petitioner has been considered and after following Bhagwan Prasad Srivastava v. N.P. Misra reported in : 1970CriLJ1401 held that all acts done by a public servant in the purported discharge of his official duties cannot as a matter of course be brought under the protective umbrella of Section 197 Cr.P.C. and further held that if the authorities vested in a, public servant is misused for doing things which are not otherwise permitted under the law, no protection can be demanded by public servant under Section 197 Cr.P.C. It was further observed that in order to apply bar of Section 197 Cr.P.C., each case has to be considered in its own facts situation in order to arrive at a finding as to whether the protection of Section 197 Cr.P.C. could be given to the public servant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Thus, it becomes clear that arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioner that no cognizance can be taken against a public servant without sanction Of the Government for committing any offence while acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duties Is devoid of force and each case has to be considered in its own facts situation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In Harish Chandra's case (supra), order passed by the learned Magistrate taking cognizance was challenged by filing separate applications under Sections 397 and 399 Cr.P.C. and when revision was dismissed, proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. were filed. In the present case, petitioner neither raised plea of Section 197 Cr.P.C. before the court taking cognizance nor filed revision against the impugned order assailing it on the ground of Section 197 Cr.P.C. but has filed directly petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which is not maintainable as per law laid down by this Court in Natwar Lal v. State and Ors. . In para 2 of State of Orissa and Ors. V. Ganesh Chandra Jew (supra), it has been mentioned that Orissa High Court at the first instance permitted the appellants to make submissions before the SD4M but the SDJM took the view that there is no necessity for sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C., petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed. In the present case, petitioner has neither approached to the court taking cognizance nor to the revisional court. In the aforesaid case, it was observed that exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be in very rare cases and in the light of the aforesaid observation, this is not a fit case in which proceedings can be quashed at this stage for want of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. and at this stage, it would not be proper on the part of this Court to go on merits of the case whether sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is required or not because If any observation is made, it will prejudice rights of the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thus, the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. However, the petitioner may approach the court taking cognizance or may assail the impugned order before the revisional court-as held in Natwar Lal's case (supra).<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2009CriLJ2042; RLW2009(1)Raj824',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '754623'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Balraj Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr. Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Section 482 Cr',
		(int) 1 => 'Section 27',
		(int) 2 => 'Section 279 IPC',
		(int) 3 => 'Section 197 Cr',
		(int) 4 => 'Section 197',
		(int) 5 => 'Section 197',
		(int) 6 => 'Section 197 Cr',
		(int) 7 => 'Section 197 Cr',
		(int) 8 => 'Section 197 Cr',
		(int) 9 => 'Section 482',
		(int) 10 => 'Section 197',
		(int) 11 => 'Section 197 Cr',
		(int) 12 => 'Section 482 Cr',
		(int) 13 => 'Section 197',
		(int) 14 => 'Section 482',
		(int) 15 => 'Section 482',
		(int) 16 => 'Section 197 Cr',
		(int) 17 => 'Section 197',
		(int) 18 => 'Section 482 Cr'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Kishan Swaroop Chaudhari',
		(int) 1 => 'Charanjeet Singh',
		(int) 2 => 'Kishan Singh',
		(int) 3 => 'Balraj Singh',
		(int) 4 => 'Babu Ram',
		(int) 5 => 'Kishan Singh',
		(int) 6 => 'Kishan Singh',
		(int) 7 => 'Babu Ram',
		(int) 8 => 'Chandra',
		(int) 9 => 'Anr',
		(int) 10 => 'Anr',
		(int) 11 => 'L.R.',
		(int) 12 => 'Chandra Jew',
		(int) 13 => 'Sankaran Moitra',
		(int) 14 => 'Anr',
		(int) 15 => 'L.R.',
		(int) 16 => 'Cri',
		(int) 17 => 'Parveen Sultana v. State',
		(int) 18 => 'Anr',
		(int) 19 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 20 => 'Counsel',
		(int) 21 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 22 => 'Counsel',
		(int) 23 => 'Natwar Lal v. State',
		(int) 24 => 'Chandra Jew',
		(int) 25 => 'Natwar Lal's'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'J.1'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 1 => 'Cr',
		(int) 2 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 3 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 4 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 5 => 'Cr',
		(int) 6 => 'Orissa',
		(int) 7 => 'Harish',
		(int) 8 => 'Chandra',
		(int) 9 => 'Mohitra',
		(int) 10 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 11 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 12 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 13 => 'Harish',
		(int) 14 => 'Chandra',
		(int) 15 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 16 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 17 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 18 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 19 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 20 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 21 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 22 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 23 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 24 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 25 => 'P.C.'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1.5.2006',
		(int) 1 => '307',
		(int) 2 => '365',
		(int) 3 => '323',
		(int) 4 => '324',
		(int) 5 => '341',
		(int) 6 => '427',
		(int) 7 => '166',
		(int) 8 => '167',
		(int) 9 => '120',
		(int) 10 => '2',
		(int) 11 => '6.12.2002',
		(int) 12 => 'three',
		(int) 13 => '200',
		(int) 14 => '202',
		(int) 15 => '2',
		(int) 16 => '2004CriLJ2011',
		(int) 17 => '295.7',
		(int) 18 => '8/2009',
		(int) 19 => '1970CriLJ1401',
		(int) 20 => '399',
		(int) 21 => '2'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Babu Ram',
		(int) 1 => 'Public Prosecutor',
		(int) 2 => 'Learned Counsel',
		(int) 3 => 'the State Government',
		(int) 4 => 'State Government',
		(int) 5 => 'Sessions Court',
		(int) 6 => 'the State Government',
		(int) 7 => 'Learned Counsel',
		(int) 8 => 'Hon'ble Supreme Court',
		(int) 9 => 'Court:(i',
		(int) 10 => 'CBI',
		(int) 11 => 'SC',
		(int) 12 => 'Apex Court',
		(int) 13 => 'Bhagwan Prasad Srivastava v. N.P. Misra',
		(int) 14 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 15 => 'Court',
		(int) 16 => 'Orissa High Court',
		(int) 17 => 'the SD4M',
		(int) 18 => 'SDJM',
		(int) 19 => 'Court'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'two months',
		(int) 1 => '18 days',
		(int) 2 => '1988',
		(int) 3 => '2006',
		(int) 4 => '2864/2007'
	),
	'PRODUCT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Sadhna Das',
		(int) 1 => 'Sections 397'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'first'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '754623',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Balraj Singh',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Balraj Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Natwar Lal v. State and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2009-01-20',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Kishan Swaroop Chaudhari, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Kishan Swaroop Chaudhari, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 1.5.2006 by which cognizance was taken against petitioner and other accused persons under Sections 307, 365, 323, 324, 341, 427, 166, 167, 120-B IPC and Section 27, Arms Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Charanjeet Singh, husband of respondent No. 2 filed a complaint and alleged that he along with Kishan Singh was coming on 6.12.2002 in pickup vehicle, they were stopped by petitioner Balraj Singh, S.H.O. along with other police personnels, who were on spot in three vehicles. Petitioner abused him and when he requested the petitioner not to abuse him, petitioner asked other accused-persons to damage complainant's vehicle, other accused-persons damaged the complainant's vehicle and petitioner and Babu Ram be laboured to the complainant and Kishan Singh, and later on, complainant and Kishan Singh sat in their vehicle and started it, then petitioner fired on the jeep by his revolver, which did not hit them and later on petitioner asked Babu Ram to fire and at the petitioner's instance Babu Ram fired by his rifle and cartridge hit complainant, he fell down, then he was got admitted in hospital by the petitioner and other accused-persons. Later on, complainant came to know that he has been falsely implicated in excise case. On this complaint, statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded and cognizance against the petitioner and other accused-persons were taken as mentioned above by impugned order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, respondent No. 2 and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that impugned order is without jurisdiction as previous sanction was not taken from the State Government under Section 197 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance and further submitted that this complaint was filed after two months and 18 days of alleged incident, and petitioner and other accused persons have been convicted under Section 279 IPC and 19/54 Excise Act, hence, petition may be accepted and impugned order be quashed. On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondent submitted that previous sanction of State Government was not necessary for prosecuting the petitioner, and further submitted that without filing revision against the impugned order before Sessions Court, this petition is not maintainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The short point involved in this petition is whether in view of Section 197 Cr.P.C., previous sanction of the State Government was necessary before taking cognizance against the petitioner S.H.O., who is public servant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on following judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and of this Court:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) Harish Chandra and Anr. v. CBI and Anr. 1988 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 136,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) State of Orissa and Ors. V. Ganesh Chandra Jew : 2004CriLJ2011 ,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Sankaran Moitra v. Sadhna Das and Anr. 2006 Cr.L.R. (SC) 295.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In Harish Chandra's case (supra), it was held that where there is reasonable connection between the act and duties of police officer, order of taking cognizance is not sustainable in absence of sanction for prosecution. I agree with the principle laid down in aforesaid judgment but it is to be seen by the trial court whether there is reasonable connection between the act and duties of the petitioner or not. Apex Court has held in Criminal Appeal No. 8/2009 @ S.L.P. (Cri.) No. 2864/2007, Choudhary Parveen Sultana v. State of West Bengal and Anr. decided on 7.1.2009 that public servant can face prosecution without prior sanction of the appropriate authorities. All acts done by a public servant in the purported discharge of his official duties cannot be brought under the protective umbrella of Section 197 Cr.P.C. There can be cases of misuse and abuse of powers vested in a public servant which can never be a part of his official duties. In this case, Sankra Mohitra's case (supra) cited by learned Counsel for the petitioner has been considered and after following Bhagwan Prasad Srivastava v. N.P. Misra reported in : 1970CriLJ1401 held that all acts done by a public servant in the purported discharge of his official duties cannot as a matter of course be brought under the protective umbrella of Section 197 Cr.P.C. and further held that if the authorities vested in a, public servant is misused for doing things which are not otherwise permitted under the law, no protection can be demanded by public servant under Section 197 Cr.P.C. It was further observed that in order to apply bar of Section 197 Cr.P.C., each case has to be considered in its own facts situation in order to arrive at a finding as to whether the protection of Section 197 Cr.P.C. could be given to the public servant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Thus, it becomes clear that arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioner that no cognizance can be taken against a public servant without sanction Of the Government for committing any offence while acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duties Is devoid of force and each case has to be considered in its own facts situation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In Harish Chandra's case (supra), order passed by the learned Magistrate taking cognizance was challenged by filing separate applications under Sections 397 and 399 Cr.P.C. and when revision was dismissed, proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. were filed. In the present case, petitioner neither raised plea of Section 197 Cr.P.C. before the court taking cognizance nor filed revision against the impugned order assailing it on the ground of Section 197 Cr.P.C. but has filed directly petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which is not maintainable as per law laid down by this Court in Natwar Lal v. State and Ors. . In para 2 of State of Orissa and Ors. V. Ganesh Chandra Jew (supra), it has been mentioned that Orissa High Court at the first instance permitted the appellants to make submissions before the SD4M but the SDJM took the view that there is no necessity for sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C., petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed. In the present case, petitioner has neither approached to the court taking cognizance nor to the revisional court. In the aforesaid case, it was observed that exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be in very rare cases and in the light of the aforesaid observation, this is not a fit case in which proceedings can be quashed at this stage for want of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. and at this stage, it would not be proper on the part of this Court to go on merits of the case whether sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is required or not because If any observation is made, it will prejudice rights of the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thus, the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. However, the petitioner may approach the court taking cognizance or may assail the impugned order before the revisional court-as held in Natwar Lal's case (supra).<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2009CriLJ2042; RLW2009(1)Raj824',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '754623'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
$shops2 = null
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

LAW: Section 482 Cr, Section 27, Section 279 IPC, Section 197 Cr, Section 197, Section 197, Section 197 Cr, Section 197 Cr, Section 197 Cr, Section 482, Section 197, Section 197 Cr, Section 482 Cr, Section 197, Section 482, Section 482, Section 197 Cr, Section 197, Section 482 Cr

PERSON: Kishan Swaroop Chaudhari, Charanjeet Singh, Kishan Singh, Balraj Singh, Babu Ram, Kishan Singh, Kishan Singh, Babu Ram, Chandra, Anr, Anr, L.R., Chandra Jew, Sankaran Moitra, Anr, L.R., Cri, Parveen Sultana v. State, Anr, P.C., Counsel, P.C., Counsel, Natwar Lal v. State, Chandra Jew, Natwar Lal's

NORP: J.1

GPE: P.C., Cr, P.C., P.C., P.C., Cr, Orissa, Harish, Chandra, Mohitra, P.C., P.C., P.C., Harish, Chandra, P.C., P.C., P.C., P.C., P.C., P.C., P.C., P.C., P.C., P.C., P.C.

CARDINAL: 1.5.2006, 307, 365, 323, 324, 341, 427, 166, 167, 120, 2, 6.12.2002, three, 200, 202, 2, 2004CriLJ2011, 295.7, 8/2009, 1970CriLJ1401, 399, 2

ORG: Babu Ram, Public Prosecutor, Learned Counsel, the State Government, State Government, Sessions Court, the State Government, Learned Counsel, Hon'ble Supreme Court, Court:(i, CBI, SC, Apex Court, Bhagwan Prasad Srivastava v. N.P. Misra, Magistrate, Court, Orissa High Court, the SD4M, SDJM, Court

DATE: two months, 18 days, 1988, 2006, 2864/2007

PRODUCT: Sadhna Das, Sections 397

ORDINAL: first