Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 413 (PAT)

Sudarshan Ram v. State Of Bihar

2006-05-04

NAVIN SINHA

body2006
Judgment Navin Sinha, J. 1. The opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint case bearing No. 1400(C) of 2002 on 12.12.2002 alleging that the petitioners were employees of the Electricity Board. They were required to replace the defective transformer in the locality of the complainant. The new transformer upon arrival was installed at another location. On protest, the petitioners abused the complainant and others and filed a false case against the boys of the locality. The petitioners taking undue advantage of their official position, had innocent children of the locality put behind bars. They called the complainant and other boys of the locality to their office and then slapped and abused them. On these allegations cognizance was taken on 19.2.2003 against the petitioners under Secs. 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. Sri Vinay Kirti Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners confined his submissions to challenge the proceeding and the order of cognizance only on the ground of lack of sanction. It was submitted that on the face of the allegations without further more, the same was concerned with and related to performance of official duties by the petitioners. He next submitted that under Sec. 81 of the Electricity (Supply) Act. 1948 all members officers and 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 Servants within the meaning of sec. 21 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. sec. 82 of the said Act provided that no suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against any member or officers or other employees of the Board for anything done in good faith or intended to be done under this Act. sec. 56 of the Indian Electricity Act. 1910 provided that no suit, prosecution or other proceeding shall lie against any public officer or servant of a local authority for anything done or purported to be done under the said Act and that no court shall take cognizance of an offence against a public officer under the said Act except with the sanction of the Central Government or the State Government as the case may be. 3. Sri Singh submitted that the petitioners were acting in discharge of their official duties regarding installation of transformers in the background of which the allegations arise. 3. Sri Singh submitted that the petitioners were acting in discharge of their official duties regarding installation of transformers in the background of which the allegations arise. They having been declared Public Servants, the order of cognizance was bad in absence of sanction under the aforesaid Act as also u/s. 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. He relied upon a Bench decision of this Court in the case of Baliram Singh V/s. State of Bihar reported in 1989 BBCJ 400 and a judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court reported in 1998 (2) PLJR 58 CSC) (Mohd. Raja V/s. State of Bihar and Anr.). 5. Sri Akhileshwar Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant opposed the application and submitted that notwithstanding that the installation of transformer was the official duty of the petitioners, it was no part of their duty to assault the consumers or customers and therefore the protection of law as urged on their behalf was not available to them. The application be dismissed. 6. This Court on consideration of the submissions finds that the allegations against the petitioners are related exclusively to the performance of their official duty regarding installation of transformer. Quite apparently when the transformer was not installed at the original designated place as alleged but was installed elsewhere this generated heat and passion. In the facts of the present case this Court finds that the performance of official duty in installation of the transformer and the heat or passion generated on the action as alleged in the complaint leading to the alleged occurrence cannot be said to be so divorced from each other as not to be inextricably linked from transaction for installation of the transformer. 7. A constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Matajog Dobey V/s. H.C. Bihari reported in - while considering the scope of sanction sec. 197 of the Cr.P.C. held in the relevant extract in paragraph 17 as follows: ...There must be a reasonable connection between the Act and the official duty. It does not matter even if the act exceeds what is strictly necessary for the discharge of the duty, as this question will arise only at a later stage when the trial proceeds on merit. It does not matter even if the act exceeds what is strictly necessary for the discharge of the duty, as this question will arise only at a later stage when the trial proceeds on merit. What we must find out is whether the Act and the official duty are so inter related that one can postulate reasonably that it was done by the accused in performance of the official duty, though possibly in excess of the needs and the requirements of the situation. 8. The second issue as to whether the requirement of sanction to a person other than those strictly cover up by sec. 197 of the Cr.P.C. be available or not was considered in the case of Mohd. Hadi Raja (Supra) relied upon by the petitioners. 9. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the said case while considering the scope for protection u/s. 197 of the Cr.P.C. to officers of the Public Sector Undertakings or Government Companies held that such protection was not available to them. The petitioners who are employees of the State Electricity Board, an autonomous body, to that extent would be covered by the aforesaid judgment. But their lordships in paragraph 26 of the judgment held as follows: It will be appropriate to notice that whenever there was felt need to include other functionaries within the definition of "public servant", they have been declared to be "Public servants" under the several special and local acts. If the legislature had intended to include officers of instrumentality or agency for bringing such officers under protective umbrella of sec. 197 Cr.P.C., it would have done so expressly. 10. Presently, such is the case, by virtue of sec. 81 read with sec. 82 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and sec. 56 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. The embargo of sanction u/s. 197 of the Cr.P.C. has been incorporated in sec. 56 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and has to be considered on the same principles as enunciated by judicial pronouncement under Sec. 197 of the Cr.P.C. Learned Counsel for the petitioners rightly relied upon the case of Baliram Singh (Supra) to contend that the order of cognizance is bad in view of the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and the Electricity (Supply) Act. 1948 as noticed above. 11. 1948 as noticed above. 11. In the case of Baliram Singh (Supra) relied upon by the petitioners, the concerned Electrical Superintending Engineer had allegedly abused and threatened the complainant with dire consequences near the control room, the passion was generated when the complainant wanted to discuss certain demands of workers which allegedly infuriated the concerned Engineer leading to his volley of abuses and threats. This Court held that it was clear that the concerned engineer was acting in discharge of his official duty and therefore the order of cognizance was bad, the petitioners therein being a public servant under Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This Court finds no reason to arrive at any different conclusion. 12. In the result this application is allowed. The order of cognizance dated 19.2.2003 in Complaint Case No. 1400(C) 2002 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ara is hereby set aside for want of necessary sanction in law. This shall not prejudiced the right of the complainant after the requirement of sanction, in law, are complied with.