Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 493 (AP)

Tokala Sambasiva Rao v. Karla David Raju

2006-04-06

P.S.NARAYANA

body2006
ORDER Heard Smt. K.Shesharajyam, the learned Counsel representing the petitioners in both the Criminal Petitions and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. Crl.P.No.2263/2000 is filed by A-2 in C.C.No.3/98 on the file of Special Court constituted under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989-cum-III Additional District Judge, Krishna at Vijayawada, now pending as P.R.C.No.20/99 on the file of II Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. Crl.P.No.2385/2000 is filed by A-1, A-3, A-4 and A-5 in the aforesaid proceedings. The II Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada had communicated to this Court that in pursuance of the telephonic message received on 05-02-2005 he had instructed the Circle Inspector of Police, Ibrahimpatnam Police Station to verify and report whether the complaint in P.R.C.No.20/99 on the file of said Court is alive for which the said Circle Inspector submitted a report that the said person Karla David Raju S/o. Abraham died on 24-12-2001 while undergoing treatment in Guntur General Hospital but he could not secure the death certificate and his wife also confirmed the death of the said person. 3. Smt. Shesharajyam, the learned Counsel representing the petitioners in both these Criminal Petitions would maintain that by virtue of Section 81 of the Electricity Supply Act 1948, r/w. Section 21 of Indian Penal Code, the petitioners are public servants and no sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter in short referred to as "Code") had been obtained and on this ground itself the proceedings are liable to be quashed. The learned Counsel also would maintain that even otherwise on facts it is clear that the defacto complainant just in order to wreak vengeance due to termination of contract had filed the private complaint misusing the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (hereinafter in short referred to as "Act".) and even on this ground the proceedings are liable to be quashed. The learned Counsel also would maintain that even otherwise the offence said to have been committed by the petitioners under the provisions of the Act is not made out at all even if the allegations made in the complaint on their face value to be taken and on this ground also the proceedings are liable to be quashed. Incidentally, the learned Counsel also had referred to the death of the complainant. 4. Incidentally, the learned Counsel also had referred to the death of the complainant. 4. Per contra the learned Public Prosecutor would contend that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that these facts have any nexus with the discharge of the official duties and hence Section 197 of the Code is not applicable to the facts of the case. The learned Public Prosecutor also would maintain that in the light of the specific allegations made in the complaint, the further proceedings may have to be proceeded with. The learned Public Prosecutor also would submit that it may be that the legal representatives or the heirs of the deceased may be interested in further prosecuting the matter. 5. As already referred to supra, the Criminal Petitions are filed by A-2 and A-1, A-3, A-4 and A-5 respectively praying for quashing of the proceedings aforesaid. The petitioners had been appointed in the erstwhile services of the A. P. State Electricity Board, hereinafter referred to as "APSEB", who had put in long service. It is also stated that these petitioners are public servants as defined under Section 81 of the Electricity Supply Act 1948, r/w. Section 21 IPC. The complainant was awarded the work of servicing of Fire Protection System equipment of Vijayawada Thermal Power Station for the period from 1-4-1996 to 31-3-1997 under an agreement with APSEB by Lr.Agt.No.6/1996-97 of S.E./Admn., & MN/VTPS and as per the terms and conditions of the agreement the wages of the labourers to be paid before the expiry of 7th day of the last wage period and E.P.F. was to be remitted by the 15th of the succeeding month. It is stated that the complainant was not doing so which paved the way to the labour unrest and tardy progress of the work. In spite of reminders and notices, the complainant/contractor had not taken any steps for timely completion of the work and several times penalties also had been imposed as per the terms of the contract after calling for explanation from him. Certain other particulars of awarding the contract under the mime of M/s. Divya Jyothi Engineering for reclaiming of coal from wagon tipplers and cleaning of surrounding area for the period from 1-5-1995 to 31-3-1996 also had been referred to. The other difficulties in relation to the progress of work and the payment of wages also had been specified. Certain other particulars of awarding the contract under the mime of M/s. Divya Jyothi Engineering for reclaiming of coal from wagon tipplers and cleaning of surrounding area for the period from 1-5-1995 to 31-3-1996 also had been referred to. The other difficulties in relation to the progress of work and the payment of wages also had been specified. It was further stated that on 28-11-1996, the Corporation represented by the Superintending Engineer, Administration & MN/VTPS - A-5 after several reminders and notices terminated the agreement with effect from 1-12-1996. Subsequent thereto, the complainant threatened with dire consequences, but however the contract was awarded to a third party. In order to wreak vengeance due to the termination of the contract, the complainant tiled a private complaint in the month of April 1998 before the III Additional District Judge, Krishna District-cum-Special Court under the Act. The same was numbered as C.C.No.3/98 which is now pending as P.R.C.No.20/99 on the file of II Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. In the said complaint, the complainant apart from questioning the action of the Board in terminating the agreement had stated that he was called in the chamber of the Chief Engineer/A-2 and the other accused also were present in the chamber and at that time A-2 abused the complainant in the name of his caste. No doubt specific stand was taken by the petitioners that no such incident as such had happened but the said complaint was thought of by the complainant which is just a consequential action to wreak vengeance against them in view of the termination of the contract. 6. It is not in serious controversy that in the light of Section 81 of the Electricity Supply Act 1948 r/w. Section 21 IPC, the petitioners/accused answer the description of public servants so as to claim protection under Section 197 of the Code. Even if the averments made in the complaint are taken on their face value, at no stretch of imagination it can be said that these alleged acts have absolutely no nexus with the discharge of their duties. The whole controversy, even as per the averments made in the complaint, appears to have commenced as resultant action of termination of the contract of the complainant. This episode cannot be said to be totally unconnected with the discharge of duties by the petitioners as public servants. The whole controversy, even as per the averments made in the complaint, appears to have commenced as resultant action of termination of the contract of the complainant. This episode cannot be said to be totally unconnected with the discharge of duties by the petitioners as public servants. It is also not in serious controversy that the complainant had not obtained any sanction whatsoever under Section 197 of the Code. Apart from this aspect of the matter, the Counsel also placed strong reliance on a decision of this Court in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Union of India 2000 (5) ALT 62 wherein the alleged insult or humiliation which had taken place in the chambers of the officers of the petitioner/Corporation where there was no public had been dealt with at length. In the present case, no doubt there are no specific averments relating to the presence of other public apart from the petitioners in the concerned chamber at the relevant point of time. Be that as it may, though there is some controversy between the aspect of 'public view' and 'public place' so as to attract the relevant provision, this question need not detain this Court any longer for the reason that this court is thoroughly satisfied that on the first ground of want of sanction, the petitioners being public servants, the prosecution cannot be further proceeded with. Hence, the second aspect which had been argued in elaboration need not be dealt with any further. 7. In the light of the same, the petitioners are bound to succeed and accordingly the proceedings in C.C.No.3/98 on the file of Special Court constituted under Act-cum-III Additional District Judge, Krishna at Vijayawada, now pending as P.R.C.No.20/99 on the file of II Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada are hereby quashed. The Criminal Petitions are accordingly allowed.