G.S. Rahi v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.
€ ^ INTHEHIGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT APPEAL N0.
Y2015 (DEVISION BENCHl APPELLANT G.S. RAHI aged about 57 years S/o Shri Phool Singh Rahi (PETITIONER) \<9 ^ i?
^..^^e:
^^^^"
ASSISTANT - ENGINEER Department Rural Engineering Govt. of C.G.
R/o Naya Sarkanda Gali No. 4 P.S.
& P.0.
- Sarkanda - BUaspur Pin - 495001 Tah & Distt - Bilaspur (C.G.j
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS 1.
STATE c:CHHAmSGARH Through: Secretary Department -of-Honie Mantralaya, RAIPUR (C.G.) 492001 SECRETARY Department j»[Panchayat And Gramin Vikas Mantralaya Raipur (C.G.) 492001 ^""
COLLECTOR Jashpur - District Jashpur - 496331 9"'
v;^^MUt^^t^!C»SvSSSS»fv^^--•.
ri^lhf^^iwi^"^^'^ ^Atft^ASi.^Q^*fcW?'*^lrttoi^^^ASEh*;?-<^^^-It^^ .G^ 4.
PROJECT ADMINISTRATQR Integrated Tribunal Development Project Jashpur - 496331 Tah & Distt- Jashpur (C.G.) /'
5.
SUPERINTENDENT-OF-POUCE Jashpur - District Jashpur496331 Tah fis Distt- Jashpur (C.G.) 6.
STATIOltfHOUSE OFFICER Police Station - Jashpur Pin - 496331 Tah fiB Distt - Jashpur (C.G.) WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2(lt OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCHt ACT. 2007
5«i^ i ^^y' .„? .s ^v \^ %'
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR D.B.:
HON'BLE SHRI NAVIN SINHA. ACTING CH1EF JUSTICE & HON'BLE SHRI P. SAM KOSHY, J.
WRITAPPEAL N0. 19 QF 2015 APPELLANT G.S. Rahi
Versus
State pf Chhattisgarh and Others RESPONDENTS (WRITAPPEAL UNDER SECTION 2(1)0F THE CHHATTISGARH MTGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENGH) ACT, 2007) Appearance:
Mr. V.G. Tamaskar, Advocate fortheAppellant.
Mr. R.K. Gupta, Dy. Advocate General for the State.
O R D E R
(27thofJanuary,2015) PER NAVIN SINHA, ACTING CJ (~*L 1.
The present appeal arises,from order dated 17.12.2014 in Writ Petition (Cri.) No.56 of 2013. The Learned Single Judge declined to and quash the prosecution of the Appellant in FIR No./Crime No.39 of 2012 also declined to interfere on the ground for lack of sanction under 197 Cr.P.C.
2.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant sought to strenuously urge before us that as the Executive Engineer he had to supervise many works and it was not possible for him to monitor payments in each one of them. He had to depend upon his subordinates. He was not the
^ „-'•'
Cashier against whom allegations of embezzlement can be made. That the entire allegations relate to his status as an Executive Engineer with regard to construction of Culvert at village Salhekera Block, Jashpumagar, which was an act in discharge of his official duties and therefore, sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was mandatory before cognizance could have been taken.
3.
Learned CouEisetj for fhe Appellant submitted that the Learned Single Jticlg®h|isadequately noticed ihatthe matter had been enquired into; by a joint inspection team consisting of the Executive Engineer PWD, Jashpur, Executive Engineer Water Resources Department, Jashpur and Executive Engineer PMGSY, Jashpur before lodging the police report.
It was next submitted that any financial embezzlement committed in the garb !of official duties shall not come within the protection umbrella of^Section '1;9^ Cr.PC. as correctly opined by the ,?>..
Learned Single Judge. The last submission was that the extraordinary power to quash the FIR should not be exercised unless it is a grave case calling for interference disclosing no offence at all on the fact ofthe allegations which was not the case presently. 4.
We have considered the submissions on behalf of the Parties and are not inclined to entertain the appeal though for a different reasons. 5.
The counter affidavit of the Respondents to the writ petition states that charge-sheet has been filed on 18.1.2012 and one person taken
lAl^i into custody on 26.7.2012. The Appellant and four other persons were absconding and were not co-operating with the Police.
Thus investigation could not be completed and supplementary charge-sheet will be filed after he is interrogated. His prayer for anticipatory bail has been rejected by the Trial Court as also by this Court. The Appellant clearly falls within the category of an "absconder". No doubt his absence is delaying the trial. Those who seek the protection of the law must first learn to resgeiE;t'Ch^law:?:!i::'5': ';:
-'
-::: ]• V^^ ,,•;:,- 6..
The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- Acting ChiefJustice Sd/- P. Sam Koshy Judge Anu