Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 3244 (RAJ)

Bhoma Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2005-12-07

H.R.PANWAR

body2005
JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Code' hereinafter) is directed against the order dated 30.3.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Balesar (for short the trial court' hereinafter) in Criminal Original Case No. 118/98, whereby the trial court dismissed the application filed by the petitioners under Section 258 of the Code and ordered framing of charge against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 304-A, 337 and 338 IPC. Aggrieved by the order impugned, the petitioners have filed the instant revision petition. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case to the extent they are relevant and necessary for the decision of the revision petition are that on 27.11.1997 one Sukha Ram lodged a report with Police Station Balesar inter-alia alleging therein that electricity wire was lying on the ground near Gordhan Ram's field, a boy returning from the school came in the contact of the electricity wire and due to electrocution the boy suffered injuries and ultimately died. The police registered a crime report and ensued the investigation. After thorough investigation, a challan was filed against both the petitioners for the offences noticed above. An application under Section 258 of the Code was moved by the petitioners before the trial court to stop the proceedings. By the order impugned, the trial court dismissed the application, hence this revision. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and public prosecutor for the State. Perused the order impugned and relevant challan papers. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are public servants and according to Section 56 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (for short the Act of 1910' hereinafter), no prosecution can be taken against the public servant for anything done or in good faith purporting to be done under this Act, without the sanction of the competent authority. Learned counsel has relied on decisions of this Court in Anand Singh v. State of Rajasthan 1975 WLN (UC) 514 and in Sahiram and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 131/03 decided on 26.8.2004. Learned counsel has relied on decisions of this Court in Anand Singh v. State of Rajasthan 1975 WLN (UC) 514 and in Sahiram and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 131/03 decided on 26.8.2004. it is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that even from the evidence available on record, no offence whatsoever is made out against the petitioners for the reason that the mishap occurred when the boy was plying with the wire which was earth wire from which no current flows, however, while the boy was playing with the earth wire accidentally it contacted with the supply line and, therefore, no negligence can be attributed to the present petitioners. 5. Learned public prosecutor supported the order impugned, however, could not point out that any such sanction was accorded to prosecute the petitioners. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised by counsel for the parties. From the perusal of the challan papers, it nowhere appears that any sanction to prosecute the petitioners as envisaged under Section 56 of the Act of 1910 was ever accorded. Sub-section (2) of Section 56 of the Act of 1910 provides that no court shall take cognizance of an offence under this Act, by a public officer except with the sanction-(a) in the case of a person employed in connection with the affairs of the Union of Central Government; and (b) in any other cases, of the State Government. 7. Section 81 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (for short the Act of 1948' hereinafter) provides that all members, and officers and other employees of the Board shall be deemed when acting or purporting to act in pursuance of any of the provisions of this Act to be public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). Section 82 of the Act of 1948 provides that no suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against any member or officer or other employees of the Board for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act. 8. Section 82 of the Act of 1948 provides that no suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against any member or officer or other employees of the Board for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act. 8. In Anand Singh v. State of Rajasthan (Supra) this Court held that the expression "good faith" used in sub-section (1) of Section 56 of the Electricity Act will be construed in the light of the definition given in the General Clauses Act & not in the light of the definition given in the Indian Penal Code, because Section 3 of the General Clauses Act clearly provides that the definition therein shall apply to the General Clauses Act and all the Central Acts and Regulations made after the commencement of the Act. 9. From the challan papers, the facts alleged by the prosecution clearly disclose that the action constituting the said offence was done or purporting to be done by the petitioners in discharge of their official function. Both the petitioners are pubic servants within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code in view of Section 81 of the Act of 1948 and are protected by Section 82 of the Act of 1948. More so, Section 56 of the Act of 1910 clearly provides that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence under this Act, by a public officer except with the sanction if a person is employed in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Govt., and in any other cases of the State Government. 10. A conjoint reading of Sections 81, 82 of the Act of 1948 and Section 56 of the Act of 1910 makes it abundantly clear that the petitioners are public servants and prosecution can be taken from anything done by them or in good faith purporting to be done with the sanction of the appropriate Govt. The appropriate Govt, competent to accord sanction to prosecute the petitioners is the State Govt., but no such sanction to prosecute the petitioners as envisaged under Section 56 of the Act of 1910 has been accorded by the State Govt. The appropriate Govt, competent to accord sanction to prosecute the petitioners is the State Govt., but no such sanction to prosecute the petitioners as envisaged under Section 56 of the Act of 1910 has been accorded by the State Govt. In this view of the matter, without the prior sanction of the State Govt, as envisaged under Section 56 of the Act of 1910, the petitioners cannot be prosecuted and, therefore, the order taking cognizance against the petitioners in the absence of the sanction of the State Govt., is liable to be set aside. More so, the controversy involved in the instant case stands squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Anand Singh's case (supra). 11. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 30.3.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Balesar is set aside. The petitioners are discharged of the offences under Sections 304-A, 337 and 338 IPC. Stay application stands disposed of.Petition allowed. *******