LexKESHAVLAL MOHANLAL SHAH versus THE STATE OF BOMBAY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• • > 1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 451 On the construction which we have adopted of the '96' expression 'tribute' in s. 4 of the Rajasthan Act the Thakur petitioner can have no legal or legitimate grievance Bahadu• Singh against the enforcement of the payment made against v. him. The petition fails and is dismissed. There will State of Rajasthan be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. KESHAVLAL MOHANLAL SHAH v. THE STATE OF BOMBAY (K. SUBBA RAO and RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.) Criminal Trial-Magistrate dismissed from service for crimi- nal misconduct-Prosecution of-Cognizance by court-Sanction to prosecute, if necessary-Code of Criminal Procedure, r898 (Act 5 of r898), s. r97. The appellant, 'a Magistrate, was dismissed from service as a result of a departmental enquiry. On a complaint filed by the State Government he was convicted under s. 409 of the Indian Penal Code. The point urged was that the trial Magis- trate should not have taken cognizance of the offence without the previous sanction in view of the provisions of s. 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Held, that no previous sanction was necessary for a Court to take cognizance of an offence committed by a Magistrate while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty if he had ceased to be a Magistrate at the time the complaint was made or police report was submitted to the Court, i.e., at the time of the taking of cognizance of the offence committed. S. A. Venkataraman v. The State, [1958] S.C.R. 1037, applied. CRIMlliAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 1960. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated August 4, 1958, of the former High Court Ayyangar ]. March r7. 4 at Bombay in Criminal Revision Application No. 728 > of 1958. B. P. Maheshwari, for the appellant. Keshavlal Mohanlal Shah v. The State of Bombay Raghubar Dayal ]. 452 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] Vir Sen Sawhney, R. H. Dhebar and T. M. Sen, for the respondent. 1961. March 17. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J.-This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court. The appellant was a Third Class Magistrate at Sanand in 1951. He received Rs. 200 in cash from Amar Singh Madhav Singh as deposit for security to be released on bail. This amount was not credited in the Criminal Deposit Rojmal and the appellant there- by committed criminal breach of trust with respect to the amount. The appellant was dismissed from service on April 4, 1953, as a result of a departmental enquiry. On June 9, 1954, a complaint was filed on behalf of the State against the appellant. He was convicted of the offence under s. 409, Indian Penal Code, by the Trial Magistrate. The conviction was confirmed by the Extra Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad. His revision was dismissed by the High Court. The only point urged in this appeal is that the learned Magistrate should not have taken cognizance of this offence without the previous sanction of the State Government in view of the provisions of s. 197, Code of Criminal Procedure. It is not disputed that a Court could not have taken cognizance of this offence against t.he appellant if he had been a Magistrate on June 9, 1954. The appel- lant was not a Magistrate on June 9, 1954, when the complaint was filed. The question then is whether the provisions of s. 197 of the Code of Criminal Pro- cedure prohibit a Court from taking cognizance of an offence committed by a Magistrate while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty even when he is no longer a Magistrate on the date the Court takes cognizance. Sub-section (1) of s. 197, Code of Criminal Procedure, reads: "(l) When any person who is a Judge within the meaning of section 19 of the Indian Penal Code, or J ;./ • I S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 453 when any Magistrate, or when any public servant who is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of a State Government or the Central Government, is accused of any offence alleged to have been commjtted by him while acting or purport- ing to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court/shall take' cognizance 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 Govern- ment; and (b) in the case of a person employed in co
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.