Kali Prasad Singh vs Sirikrishun Chaturvedi

Manohar Lall, J.—This is an application for quashing the proceedings now pending against Babu Kali Prasad Singh, the Chairman of the Buxar Municipality.

On 10th November 1937, the complainant, who is a teacher in the Srinivas Sanskrit Pathsala, since 1929, lodged a complaint against the petitioner and his clerk. It appears that the local Municipality agreed to give an aid to the Pathsala in 1933-34 which was apparently fixed at Rs. 55 per annum or for that year. But in February 1934, the complainant received Rs. 5 only instead of Rs. 55 and he granted a receipt for this amount. Having received the sum of Rs. 5 he submitted his annual report in April of the same year to the effect that he received a sum of Rs. 5. The Deputy Inspector of Schools who knew that the aid given to the school or Pathsala was more, asked for an explanation from the complainant as to why he had acknowledged receipt of Rs. 5 instead of Rs. 55. As a result of that some incidents happened and the complainant received another Rs. 50 in June 1934. In the petition of complaint which is in Hindi the complainant is silent as to who paid him Rs. 50 and where: but in his examination on oath on 10th November 1937, he says:

I was paid Rs. 5 in the Municipal Office and Rs. 50 at the house of the Munioipal Head Clerk Rajindra Prasad.

This Rajindra Prasad is the accused who has been summoned but who had not moved this Court. The learned Magistrate on receipt of this complaint and after examining the complainant as he was required to do by the provisions of Section 200 of the Code, passed this order:

This is a complaint against the Chairman, Buxar Municipality, and his Head Clerk. I have to see many papers in this connexion. Orders reserved.

After more than two months had elapsed, that is to say on 18th January 1938, summons were issued to the petitioner as well as on Rajindra Prasad by a long order which shows that the learned Magistrate spent the time in looking into the record of the Municipality in the Municipal Office in order to satisfy himself that the accused should be summoned. Against the order summoning him, the petitioner moved the learned Sessions Judge to make a reference to this Court for quashing the proceedings, but the learned Judge by his order dated 31st March 1938 declined to do so.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner took two points in support of the petition; in the first place, it was contended that the provisions of Section 197, Criminal P.C., were fatal to the prosecution, because admittedly the petitioner is a public servant and no sanction of the Local Government had been obtained before the present prosecution had been launched against him, secondly, it was argued that the delay in this case, namely about four years, is also a serious bar to the prosecution going on. In my opinion the petitioner is entitled to succeed on both the points.

It was held in a number of cases by this Court, and I need mention only three of them, Jotindra Nath Mukharji and Others Vs. Radha Krishna Budhia, . Ram Singh v. S.A. Rizvi A.I.R.1935. Pat. 52 and Hemendra Nath Gupta and Others Vs. Emperor, that the interpretation of Section 197, Criminal P.C., by the Calcutta High Court in such cases as Amanat Ali Vs. Emperor, and Ors. High Courts, as mentioned in Ram Singh v. S.A. Rizvi A.I.R.1935. Pat. 52 is not to be accepted. On the other hand this Court takes the view that the policy of the Legislature is to afford a reasonable protection to the public servants in the discharge of their official function and that this policy cannot be defeated by having resort to the view that

at the time of committing the offence the public servant cannot be said to be discharging public duty.

In my opinion it is unnecessary to consider the matter at any great length. The petitioner Babu Kali Prasad Singh is completely protected by the provisions of Section 197, Criminal P.C. He is admittedly a public servant, is a Municipal Commissioner, and it is also conceded that he cannot be removed from his office without the sanction of the Local Government: see Ram Narayan Sarora and Others Vs. Parswanath Sen and Others, . I cannot understand why this prosecution has been launched after this inordinate delay. It rouses suspicion in one''s mind that this has been done to serve some other end, either of this complainant or of others who are interested in disgracing the petitioner. The complainant having received Rs. 50 was satisfied in June 1934; and, although he says that he was corresponding with the Municipality, it is impossible to believe that he was lulled into silence for four years if he was at all anxious to prosecute the petitioner in the cause of purity of municipal administration.

On this ground also, and considering that the statement on oath of the complainant distinctly states that he received the money from, the head clerk, it is clear to my mind that the case should have been allowed to proceed only against the heard clerk and not against the petitioner.

I would accordingly direct that the proceedings pending against the petitioner, Babu Kali Prasad Singh, the Chairman of the Buxar Municipality, in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer of Buxar be quashed. The rule is made absolute.