Important point
Prosecution against an officer of Govt. Company or a public undertaking would not require any sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C.

Judgment

S.B. Sinha, J.—Whether a Class I Officer of the State Government (Haryana) deputed to work as Managing Director of a Co-operative Society is entitled to protection under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 14.7.2000 passed by the High Court Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

2. The fact of the matter, shorn of all unnecessary details is as under:

The Respondent herein was working as Land Valuation Officer under one Dalip Singh, Manager, Primary Agricultural Land Development Bank, Dabwali, a branch office of the Cooperative Society wherein the Appellant was the Managing Director.

3. A Veterinary Doctor V.K. Mittal was arrested by the Vigilance Bureau on or about 29.3.1995, allegedly while accepting illegal gratification of Rs. 700/- from a farmer. The said doctor made an allegation that out of the said amount of Rs. 700/-, a sum of Rs. 400/- was to be paid to the Manager. Dalip Singh, on the basis of the said statement, was arrested. He was later on, however, acquitted.

4. The District Manager, Sirsa, in charge of the Circle, by a letter dated 12.4.1995 brought to the Appellant’s notice that a relative of the Respondent, working as Inspector in Vigilance at the instance of the Respondent, got the said Manager arrested as he had been nursing a grudge against him having been transferred from Dabawali on his recommendation. Upon receipt of the said letter, the Appellant addressed a letter dated 19.4.1995 to the Director General of Police, Vigilance Department, Haryana, Chandigarh, requesting him to look into the matter personally. The letter contained a statement “Later on with the connivance of Shri Abhimanyu, Land Valuation Officer and his one relative who is in Haryana Police, has falsely implicated Shri Dilip Singh.... The Manager has been implicated due to personal difference with Shri Abhimanyu...” The said letter was published in a newspaper, whereafter the Respondent filed a complaint against the Appellant herein in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa, purported to be for commission of an offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC), on the ground that by reason thereof his prestige got lowered in the general public as also amongst his relatives. The Appellant was summoned in the said case by the Chief Judicial Magistrate by an order dated 13.7.1998.

5. The Appellant herein filed an application before the said Court on 30.4.1999 on the ground that no sanction in terms of Section 197 Cr.P.C. having been obtained, the entire proceeding was vitiated in law as, according to him, the aforementioned DO letter was issued by him in his official capacity. It was further contended that the said letter has been procured by some persons wherewith the Appellant has no concern.

6. The said application, however, was dismissed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate by an order dated 14.8.1999. Aggrieved thereby the Appellant filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying therein for quashing the order dated 13.7.1998 whereby he had been summoned. By reason of the impugned order, the said application was dismissed holding that as the Appellant was working on deputation in the Cooperative Housing Federation at the relevant time, he was not entitled to get the protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved, the Appellant is before us.

7. Mr. Vijay Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, would submit that the Appellant being a Class-I Officer of the State Government was entitled to the said protection in terms of the provisions of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment or Appeal) Rules, 1987 as also the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984.

8. Sanction for prosecution of a public servant, the learned counsel would contend, is a valuable right. It was submitted that the High Court committed a manifest error in dismissing the Appellant’s application under Section