1. All these criminal revisions are arising out of a common impugned order dated 12/02/2018, therefore, all the revisions were heard and are being decided by a common order

2. The applicants have preferred all these criminal revisions under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 (in short, 'Cr.P.C.') being aggrieved by impugned order dated 12/02/2018 passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh (Biaora) (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No.221/2015, whereby applications under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants have been dismissed and charges under Section 420, 465, 468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'IPC') have been framed against the applicants.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that Directorate of Health Services, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal has issued an order dated 15/09/2008, accordingly a District Level Selection Committee has been constituted by the Collector, Rajgarh under the Chairmanship of Chief Medical and Health Officer (CMHO), Rajgarh with a task of examining all the relevant documents of the candidates and upon such examination to prepare a merit list after following the Rules of Reservation. CMHO, Rajgarh by an order dated 13/10/2008 constituted a Screening Committee consisting of (i) Dr. A. K. Mehta, District Health and Family Welfare Officer, District Rajgarh (Biaora) as Committee incharge; (ii) Shri R. C. Pushpad, Assistant Grade-II, Office of the Civil Surgeon, Rajgarh (Bioara) - Member; (iii) Shri Deepak Vijayvargiya, Assistant Grade-II, Local Office – Member; (iv) Shri L. N. Kumbhkar, Assistant Grade-II, Local Office – Member; and (v) Shri Bharat Bushan, Assistant Grade-III, Office of the Civil Surgeon, Rajgarh (Biaora) – Member.

4. The Screening Committee has considered as many as 595 application forms and marked the deficiency with red ink over such application form and cancelled 229 forms of various categories, 8 were found to be dubious and 357 were found to be in order in all respect. The Collector, Rajgarh (Biaora) vide order dated 20/02/2009 has cancelled the entire selection process of appointment of Female Multipurpose Health Worker citing serious irregularities by the Screening Committee while verifying the application forms and appended documents.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that applicants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this mater. Petitioner Laxmi Narayan Kumbhkar was placed under suspension by the Collector, Rajgarh (Biaora) and at the instance of the CMHO, Rajgarh (Biaora) a crime has been registered at Crime No.153/2009 against the members of the Screening Committee and as many as 32 candidates at Police Station Rajgarh (Biaora) vide offence under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 120-B of the IPC.

6. Later on the Commissioner, Bhopal vide order dated 15/11/2010 has set aside the order dated 06/03/2009 passed by the Collector directing the revocation of suspension of the applicants with a direction to conduct a joint enquiry. Thereafter, a Joint Departmental Enquiry was instituted and vide enquiry report dated 12/06/2012 found none of the charges of committing forgery or overwriting or any kind of irregularity in the selection process was proved.

7. Learned counsel for the applicants further submit that District Prosecution Officer, Rajgarh (Biaora) opined that there is no necessity / requirement of placing the applicants under suspension. Before filing the challan, no prior sanction for prosecution has been obtained. All the applicants are government servants and they were acting in official discharge of their duties, therefore, prosecution cannot be continued against them in absence of prior sanction for prosecution. Applicants did not select the candidates. They have inquired about the credentials of the candidates. Nothing has been found on record that they have obtained any money or any other consideration from any person. Report submitted by the handwriting expert has not supported the case of prosecution that applicants have committed any addition, alteration or modification in the aforesaid documents. They have been exonerated from the charges levelld against them in Departmental Enqiury, therefore, on the same piece of evidence no criminal prosecution can be lodged against them. Hence, he prays that impugned order be set aside and applicants be discharged from all the charges levelled against them.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent / State opposes the prayer and prays for its rejection by submitting that sufficient prima facie evidence is available against the applicants regarding the aforesaid offence. On the basis of the cogent evidence available on record, impugned order passed by the trial Court is just and proper and no interference is required.

9. Heard learned counsel for all the parties at length and perused the case diary and all other documents related with it.

10. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the alleged act has been done by the applicants, who are the government servants, while discharging their official duties, but prior sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. has not been obtained, therefore, the trial Court cannot take cognizance of such offences against them.

11. It is also noteworthy that in order to determine whether in a particular case a public servant is entitled to the protection of Section 197 of Cr.P.C., all that has to be considered is whether the act complained of against the public servant which is alleged to constitute the offence was committed by him while discharging his official duty and that such act had a reasonable connection with his official duty. The prior sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is necessary if acts complained of a public servant are so integrally connected with the duties attached to the office as to be inseparable from them. But if there is no necessary connection between them and the performance of the duties, then no sanction is necessary.

12. In the instance case, it is quite clear that applicants are the members of the Screening Committee, who has been appointed for the screening of the applications submitted by the candidates, but as per the enquiry report the allegation has been levelled against them is that they have shown 'OBC' candidates in 'General' category and by using fluid ink they have manipulated the record to interpolate for committing forgery also. Accordingly, offence under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 120-B of IPC have been framed against them.

13. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance upon the judgments delivered in the case of Devinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab through CBI reported in (2016) 12 SCC 87, [LQ/SC/2016/578] Amal Kumar Jha Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Another reported in (2016) 6 SCC 734 [LQ/SC/2016/585] S. Saha and Others Vs. M. S. Kochar reported in (1979) 4 SCC 177, [LQ/SC/1979/303] Rakesh Kumar Mishra Vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in (2006) 1 SCC 557, [LQ/SC/2006/8] State of Punjab Vs. Labh Singh reported in (2014) 16 SCC 807 [LQ/SC/2014/1367] . However, the above citations are distinguishable on facts and therefore, they are not applicable in the instant case.

14. In the case of Prakash Singh Badal Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 2007 SC 1274 [LQ/SC/2006/1230 ;] , Hon'ble the apex Court has held that “the offence of cheating by its very nature cannot be regarded as having been committed by public servant while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. Where offence is under Section 420, 467, 468 or 471 read with Section 120B, no sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. for prosecution of a public service is necessary.”

15. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the applicants being public servants committed but they have allegedly committed an offence of cheating, forgery, etc., therefore, their aforesaid acts cannot be treated as an act, which has been purporting to the act in discharge of their official duty, as such offences have no nexus between them and performance of duties of a public servant, the official status furnishing only the occasion or opportunity for the commission of the offences. Such being the position, the provisions of Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is inapplicable and no prior sanction for prosecution is necessary.

16. The second contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that applicants being member of the Screening Committee has inquired only about the credentials of the candidates. They have not finally selected them and not even any material benefit has been extended to the candidates, therefore, they have not committed any offence. But the allegation against the present applicants is that they have exceeded their limits of official duty and not acted judiciously or properly in performing their official duties. The work and jurisdiction of the Screening Committee is the matter of evidence, which can be proved during the trial by examining the witnesses and thereafter, such evidence can be evaluated, hence, the contention made by learned counsel for the applicants cannot be accepted.

17. The another contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that the Commissioner has set aside the enquiry report submitted by the Collector, therefore, that enquiry cannot be made a basis of the prosecution of the applicants in the instant case, but from perusal of the order dated 15/09/2010 passed by the Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal in case No.16/Misc. Appeal/09-10 (Annex.-P/9), it appears that the appeal filed by the applicant Laxmi Narayan Kumbhkar was partly allowed and his suspension has been revoked and he was reinstated in service and matter has been remanded back to the Collector, Rajgarh with a direction to conduct a inquiry against all the members and incharge of Screening Committee as per Rule 18, therefore, it cannot be said the Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal has quashed the order passed by the Collector, Rajgarh regarding enquiry report.

18. It is also argued by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants have been discharged in Departmental Enquiry, therefore, on the same set of evidence and same grounds, they are not liable for prosecution, but Departmental Enquiry and the prosecution of a criminal case both are different proceedings and cannot runt simultaneously or parallel.

19. In the case of In the case of Ramveer Upadhyay and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. passed in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2953 of 2022, Hon'ble the apex Court has held as under:-

“.....Whether the allegations are true or untrue, would have to be decided in the trial. In exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court does not examine the correctness of the allegations in a complaint except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence. ....”

20. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion in entirety as well as the material available on record and the law laid down by Hon'ble the apex Court, this Court does not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in impugned order dated 12/02/2018 passed by the trial Court.

21. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for setting aside the order dated 12/02/2018 passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh (Biaora) (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No.221/2015. Accordingly, all the five criminal revisions are hereby dismissed.

22. It is made clear that nothing observed herein above shall prejudice the case of the applicants / accused at the trial.

23. Signed judgment be kept in file of Criminal Revision No.849/2018 and a copy thereof be placed in the files of connected criminal revisions.

24. Certified copy as per rules.