In a quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court upheld the lower court's rejection of a discharge petition. The court ruled that no prior sanction is needed for Section 409 IPC offences as they are personal and not official. It also held the CDPO could register the FIR.
The CRLMC application stands dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK
CRLMC NO. 3002 OF 2006
An application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with G.R. Case No.79 of 2000 pending on the file of C.J.M., Rayagada.
Laxman @ Lakhan
Kumar Patnaik ……… Petitioner -VersusState of Orissa ……… Opposite Party For Petitioner: - M/s. Ramakanta Mohapatra M.K. Mohapatra P.Jena, S.K. Gartia For Opposite Party: - Mr. Jyoti Prakash Patra Addl. Standing Counsel ----------------------
P R E S E N T:-
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Date of Hearing and Judgment- 21.09.2016
S. K. SAHOO, J . The petitioner has challenged the impugned order
dated 16.10.2006 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rayagada in G.R. Case No. 79 of 2000 in rejecting the discharge petition filed by the petitioner and holding that there are sufficient materials placed by the investigating agency
2
to believe that prima facie case under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner.
The second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the F.I.R. has been lodged by the C.D.P.O., Rayagada who is not the competent authority to lodge the F.I.R.
The third contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the C.D.P.O. has committed all the mischief but falsely entangled the petitioner.
63, where the complainant challenged the order of quashing the issuance of process against the accused for offence punishable under sections 420, 406 & 161 Indian Penal Code, relying on the decision of Prakash Singh Badal Vrs. State of Punjab
reported in (2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 1 , it was held that sanction of the competent authority for prosecuting the
3
accused for such offences is not required as by no stretch of imagination by their very nature, such offences be regarded as having been committed by any public servant while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duty.
In case of Sarat Chandra Dehury -Vrs.- Sankirtan Behera reported in 1989 (1) Orissa Law Reviews 321, it is held that the act of misappropriation or criminal breach of trust of Gram Panchayat fund cannot be held to have been done while the Sarpanch acts or purports to act in the discharge of his official duty. Criminal misappropriation and criminal breach of trust are offences of purely personal character unconnected with any official duty. Therefore, prior sanction of the Govt. U/s. 197 of the Code for the prosecution of the accused for commission of offences U/s. 409 and 420 I.P.C. was not necessary.
4
shortage and accordingly, after investigation, charge sheet was submitted under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code.
The condition which is sine qua non for recording a First Information Report is that there must be information and that information must disclose a cognizable offence. It is manifestly clear that if any information disclosing a cognizable offence is laid before an officer in charge of a police station satisfying the requirements of Section 154 (1) of the Code, the said police officer has no other option except to enter the substance thereof in the prescribed form, that is to say, to register a case on the basis of such information. (Ref:-A.I.R.
5
1992 S.C. 604 (Para 30, 31, 32), State of Haryana –Vrs-
Ch. Bhajanlal).
Accordingly, the CRLMC application stands dismissed.
S. K. Sahoo, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 21st September, 2016/Kabita
3 issues framed by the court
Whether sanction of competent authority is necessary for prosecution of offence under section 409 IPC when committed by a storage agent not acting in discharge of official duty.
Whether the complainant C.D.P.O. had jurisdiction to lodge the F.I.R. for offences under section 409 IPC.
Whether the impugned order rejecting the discharge petition involved any illegality.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
OM Kr. Dhankar Vrs. State of HaryanaExplained¶18
(2012) 52 Orissa Criminal Reports 63
Prakash Singh Badal Vrs. State of PunjabExplained¶19
(2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 1
Sarat Chandra Dehury -Vrs.- Sankirtan BeheraExplained¶23
1989 (1) Orissa Law Reviews 321
State of Haryana Vrs. Ch. BhajanlalReferred¶31
1992 S.C. 604
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Laxman @ Lakhan Kumar Patnaik
State of Orissa
S. K. SAHOO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
