KANHIYA RAM & Ors. v. STATE OF BIHAR & Anr.

found cutting in page nos. 13 to 16. Learned counsel pointed out that during investigation not a single beneficiary of the above scheme of the State Government was examined by the police. In short the argument of learned counsel is that cognizance taken against the petitioners is bad in law. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2, on the other hand, supported the impugned order and submitted that at this stage no interference is required. He submitted that the impugned order indicates the judicial satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. He also submitted that in case of forgery the protection of public servant is not available to the accused. 4 It appears from the case diary that during investigation the beneficiaries of the General Indira Awas Yojna and Pradhan Mantri Indira Awas Yojna were not examined by the police. It further appears from paragraph 17 of the case diary that during investigation the police did not find any replacement of page nos. 13 to 16 from the proceeding book. The impugned order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate does not indicate that he found any cutting in page nos. 13 to 16. On the other hand, the same indicates that he found cutting in page 17 onwards. Section 170 of Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 reads as follows: to act “Public Servant__ All members, the Gram officers and employees of Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad shall be deemed, when acting or purporting discharge of their duties, or in the exercise of their powers under this Act or under the rules or bye-laws made thereunder, to be public servants within the meaning of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Central Act, 45 of 1860).” in pursuance of It is admitted position that Mukhiya, Panchayat sewak and Agriculture Officer are public servant and therefore, they cannot be prosecuted for an offence committed by them in discharge of their official duties without prior sanction of the State Government. The grievance of opposite party no.2 is that it is not the duty of a public servant to commit forgery in the record and therefore, the protection as provided is not available to them. It appears from the case diary that during investigation not a single witness claimed to have seen 5 the petitioners committing the alleged forgery in the register. The police did not find any replacement of page nos. 13 to 16 from the proceeding book. It appears from the pleadings of the parties that in the present case no sanction has been obtained by the complainant for launching the present prosecution against petitioners accused. There is allegation in the complaint petition that the complainant met the Sub-divisional officer and Block Development Officer and informed about the alleged incident but surprisingly those two officers were not examined by the police during investigation. This Court has examined the entire materials available on record. A person cannot be prosecuted on the basis of suspicion. The judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment. Sufficient grounds do not mean sufficient ground for conviction but such evidence as would be sufficient to put the accused upon trial. It appears from the impugned order that the learned Magistrate has acted mechanically. In the case diary there is no material to support the allegation. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the continuance of the prosecution of the petitioners would be an abuse of the process of the court. This application is accordingly allowed and the order of cognizance as against the petitioners is hereby quashed. Al (M.Saran,J)