9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Need for sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C for public servants. 2. Validity of taking cognizance after recording sworn statements. Analysis: 1. The petitioners, who are public servants, argued that the complainant should have obtained sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C before filing the complaint. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that the abusive behavior of the accused towards the complainant, an advocate, did not fall within the scope of their official duties. The court emphasized that the derogatory remarks made by the accused were not connected to the discharge of their official duties and could amount to an offense. Therefore, the complainant was not required to obtain sanction to prosecute the accused in this case. 2. The court addressed the issue of taking cognizance after recording sworn statements. It clarified that the Magistrate is required to take cognizance of the offenses before proceeding to record sworn statements. In this case, the Magistrate had taken notice of the accusations in the complaint and decided to record sworn statements of the complainant and witnesses. The court held that the Magistrate had applied his mind and taken cognizance of the offenses before recording the sworn statements, as inferred from the facts and material on record. The court concluded that the order of issuing process could not be set aside on technical grounds, as there was no prejudice caused to the petitioners by the Magistrate not explicitly mentioning the cognizance in the order sheet before recording sworn statements. In the final decision, the court dismissed the criminal petition but granted the petitioners the liberty to argue for their discharge before the trial court if they chose to do so. The trial court was instructed to consider any such arguments in accordance with the law without being influenced by any observations made during the judgment.
|
