Pardeep Singh vs State of Punjab and ors.

J.M. Tandon, J.

Mohinder Singh respondent filed a complaint under section 506, Indian Penal Code and sections 6 and 7 of the Untouchability Act against the petitioner on January 12. 1984, wherein, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Giderbaha. has summoned the petitioner under Sections 6 and 7 of the Untouchability Act vide order. dated January 27, 1984.

The petitioner is a Block Development Officer, District Faridkot. Accordingto the complainant he approached the petitioner in his office on January 12, 1994. and requested that he may be got delivered the charge as Sarpanch. Gram Panchayat, Adhanian. The complainant is a member of the Schedule Castes. The petitioner ridiculed him for being a member of the scheduled castes and further declined to help him in getting the charge as Sarpanch on that account. The petitioner also warned him not to visit his office again.

The learnedcounsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was appointed as Block Development Officer by the State Government. The complainant had allegedly approached him in his office on January 12, 1984, in his official capacity. The complainant had requested the petitioner to help him in taking over the charge as Sarpanch, Panchayat, Adhanian, also in his official capacity. It was in his official capacity that the petitioner allegedly declined to help him in getting the charge as Sarpanch and further ridiculed him for being a member of, the Scheduled Castes. The act of the petitioner complained against was thus performed in discharge of his official duties for Which he cannot be prosecuted without the requisite sanction under section 197, Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner has, therefore, been wrongly summoned as an accused vide the impugned order. Reliance has been placed on a similar order of this Court in Criminal Revision No. 145 of 1983 decided on January 13, 1984.

The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the act of the petitioner complained against cannot be treated having been performed in the discharge of his official duties and as such no sanction for his prosecution under section 197, Criminal Procedure Code, is required.

The petitioner was approached by the complainant for help in his official capacity The petitioner declined to extend the help and further ridiculed him for being a member of the Scheduled Castes. It is obvious that the entire conduct of the petitioner constitute one unit. The alleged act of the petitioner expressing contemptuous ridicule to the complainant for being a member of the Scheduled Caste shall have to be treated as a part of the integrated action performed by him in the discharge of his official duties for which he cannot be prosecuted without the sanction under section 197, Criminal Procedure Code.

In the result, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated January 27, 1984, quashed.