9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (2) TMI 623X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w being contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Prakash Singh Badal case (2006 (12) TMI 548 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA). The second question is answered in the negative and in favour of the appellant. - Criminal Appeal No. 464 of 2012 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl) No. 6908 of 2008) - - - Dated:- 28-2-2012 - R. M. Lodha And H. L. Gokhale, JJ. JUDGMENT R. M. Lodha, J. Leave granted. 2. The complainant is in appeal, by special leave, aggrieved by the order dated May 17, 2007 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana whereby the single Judge of that Court dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition filed by the appellant and affirmed the order dated February 1, 2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon. The Additi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he respondent No. 2, according to the complainant, promised him to issue receipts from the office. The complainant visited the office of the accused at about 4 p.m., but there was no one in the office except one office clerk who told him that two buses have been released and the third bus would be released on payment of ₹ 50,000/- at the residence of the respondent No. 2. The complainant paid ₹ 50,000/- at about 9.30 p.m. at the residence of the respondent No. 2 and the third bus was also released. In the complaint, the complainant alleged that the respondent No. 2 had cheated him and the public money has been embezzled and the accused also received illegal gratification; the intention of the respondent No. 2 was malafide whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal Revision Petition against the order of summoning is maintainable, and (two) whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) is required. 9. Insofar as the first question is concerned, it is concluded by a later decision of this Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande and Others Vs. Uttam and Another (1999) 3 SCC 134. In Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande case (supra) this Court considered earlier decisions of this Court in the cases of Madhu Limaye Vs. State of Maharashtra (1977) 4 SCC 551, V.C. Shukla Vs. State 1980 Supp. SCC 92, Amar Nath Vs. State of Haryana (1977) 4 SCC 137 and K.M. Mathew Vs. State of Kerala (1992) 1 SCC 217 and it was hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the report. This Court thus held that the offence of cheating under Section 420 or for that matter offences relateable to Sections 467,468, 471 and 120-B can by no stretch of imagination by their very nature be regarded as having been committed by any public servant while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duty. This Court stated in paragraphs 49 and 50 of the report thus: 49. Great emphasis has been laid on certain decisions of this Court to show that even in relation to the offences punishable under Sections 467 and 468 sanction is necessary. The foundation of the position has reference to some offences in Rakesh Kumar Mishra case. That decision has no relevance because ultimately this Court has held that the absenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
