LexSTATE OF U.P. versus MATA BHIKH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A STATE OF U.P. v. MATA BHIKH AND ORS. MARCH 9, .1994 B (S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND P.B. SAWANT, JJ.) c Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 195(1)(a)-'Pub1ic Ser- vant concemed'-lnterpretation of-Successor in office-Position of-Whether could file a complaint for non- compliance of his predecessor's orders. Words & Phrases: 'Public servant concemed'-Meaning of-In the context of S.195(J)(a) Cr.P.C. By an order u/s. 145 Cr.P.C. the Sub Divisional Magistrate resirained the respondents froom interfering with the possession of one "R" D in respect of a plot or land. The agent of "R" filed a petition complaining that the respondents had violated the said order and the Sub Divisional Magistrate preferred a petition u/s.188 IPC before the Judicial Magistrate. The respondents were found! guilty and were convicted and sentenced to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment, which was confirmed, on appeal, by the Additional Sessions Judge. E Respondents preferred! a Revision and the High Court allowed it ahd set aside the conviction and sentence mainly on the ground that the complaint bad been filed not. by 'the public servant concerned', namely, the Magistrate who passed that order under Section 145 of the Code, but by F a successor Magistrate and that any successor Magistrate cannot exercise jurisdiction under Section 195(1) (a) and that the complaint, therefore, was not maintainable in law. G The State preferred llhe present appeal against the High Court's judgment. Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD: 1.1. A successor in office of a public servant concerned will also fall within the ambit of the expression 'public servant concerned' appearing in S.195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. Any H other view contrary to it will only create difficulties in certain situations. 368 I t ,., ' \ .t STATEOFU.P. v. MATABHIKH 369 In a case where a public servant concerned promulgates a preliminary A order under Sections 133, 145 or 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and is transferred or retires or ceases to be in office on any account before a final order Is passed, would It mean that the snccessor who Is under t!!f law to continue the same proceeding, has no right to file a complaint if the preliminary order Is disobeyed. In every such situation, one cannot expect B the superior officer to whom the public servant is administratively sub· ordinate to file a complaint against the wrongdoers disobeying either the preliminary order or the final order promulgated by the public servant concerned. (373-G-H, 374-A] 1.2. The successor-in-office of the public servant gets into the same C 1 position of the public servant concerned and he is in law eligible to file a complaint against wrongdoers. (374-B-C] Ajaib Singh v. Joginder Singh, AIR (1968) SC 1422, relied on. Government Advocate, Bihar v. Kumar Singh, AIR (1938) Pat 83 and D Manik Lal Bhagat v. State and Another, (1982) Crl.W. 1473, approved. Mata Bhlkh and Others v. State, (1980) Crl.LJ. 575, overruled. In re. Subramanian Chettier AIR (1957) Mad. 442; Public Prosecutor E v. Mohamed Al~ AIR (1969) AP 41; Daulat Ram v. State of Punjab, [1962] Supp. 2 SCR 812 and P.D. Patel v. Emperor, AIR (1933) Rangoon 292, referred to. 2. However, in the instant case, since the proceedings commenced in the year 1968 and the judgment in revision by the High Court was rendered F in August 1979, the respondents were admonished under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act instead of directing them to undergo the sentence passed by the Courts below. (374-D] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. G 202 of 1981. ,L From the Judgment and Order dated 3.8.79 of the Allahabad High Court in CrL Rev. 614n7. Ms. Kamini Jaiswai for A.S. Pundir for the appellant. H 370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) 2 S.C.R. A R.D. Upadhyay (NP) for the respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S. RA TNA VEL PAN DIAN, J. The short point involved for determina- tion in this appeal is with regard to the interpretation of the expression 'the B public servant concerned' appearing in Section 195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). The brief facts of the case which led to this controversy are as follows:- It is the adimtted case that on 11.4.1968 a proceeding was initiated before the Sub Divisional Magistrate of Gyanpur under Section 145 of the C Code in respect
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.