Back
1990 Supreme(Pat) 164
PATNA HIGH COURT
L.P.N.Shahdeo, J.
Triloki Nath Raina
Versus
State Of Bihar Through Labour Enforcement Officer (Central)
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1369 of 1987 ; 1372 of 1987 ; 1935 of 1987 ; 1983 of 1987 ;
Decided On : APRIL 18, 1990
Prior sanction from the Central Government is required under Section 197 of the CrPC for the prosecution of a public servant accused of an offense allegedly committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 197 - SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION - PUBLIC SERVANT - MINES ACT - SECTION 75 - SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION - OWNER, AGENT, OR MANAGER - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Director (Technical) of Central Coal Fields Limited, was prosecuted for various offenses under the Payment of Wages (Mines) Rules, 1956, and the Mines Act, 1952. The petitioner challenged the cognizance taken by the courts, arguing that prior sanction from the Central Government was required under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) since he was a public servant.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code and that prior sanction from the Central Government was necessary for his prosecution under Section 197 of the CrPC. The court further held that the sanction required under Section 75 of the Mines Act for prosecuting the owner, agent, or manager of a mine did not obviate the requirement of sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC for prosecuting a public servant.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Whether prior sanction from the Central Government was required for the petitioner's prosecution under Section 197 of the CrPC. 3. Whether the sanction required under Section 75 of the Mines Act for prosecuting the owner, agent, or manager of a mine obviated the requirement of sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC for prosecuting a public servant.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner was a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code because he was appointed by the President of India and was employed by a corporation established by a Central Government Act. 2. The court held that prior sanction from the Central Government was required for the petitioner's prosecution under Section 197 of the CrPC because he was a public servant accused of an offense allegedly committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. 3. The court held that the sanction required under Section 75 of the Mines Act for prosecuting the owner, agent, or manager of a mine did not obviate the requirement of sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC for prosecuting a public servant because Section 197 of the CrPC provided additional protection to public servants who were appointed by the Central Government or a State Government.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitioner's applications and quashed the criminal prosecution against him in all the cases, including the orders taking cognizance against him.
L.P.N.Shahdeo, J.
1. In all these four Cri. Misc Nos. 1935 of 1987 (R), 1983 of 1987 (R), 1369 of 1987 (R) and 1972 of 1987 (R), Mr. Triloki Nath Raina, Director (Technical) of Central Coal Fields Limited, is the petitioner, who has since retired.
2. In all the cases, the petitioner is the same person and common question of law has been involved, which was also argued together by both the parties and as such all the aforesaid cases have been taken up together for the sake of convenience for disposal with the consent of both the parties.
3. In Cri. Misc. No. 1935 of 1987 (R), the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal prosecution including the order taking cognizance dated 15-7-1986 passed the Chief Judicial Magistrate Daltonganj, whereby the Chief Judicial Magistrate had taken cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Rule 22-A of the Payment of Wages (Mines) Rules, 1956. In Cri. Misc. No. 1983 of 1987 (R), the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal prosecution including the order taking cognizance dated 4-9-1986 passed by Sri S. Kunkal, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Rule 22-A of the Payment of Wages (Mines) Rules, 1956. In Cri Misc. No. 1369 of 1987 (R), the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal prosecution including the order taking cognizance dated 15-5-1986 passed by Sri S. Kunkal, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Sec. 67 of the Mines Act, 1952 , In Cri. Misc. No. 1372 of 1987 (R) the similar prayer has been made by the petitioner for quashing the criminal prosecution including the order taking cognizance dated 15-5-1986 passed by Sri S. Kunkal, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Sec. 67 of the Mines Act, 1952.
4. In Cri. Misc. No. 1935 of 1987 (R), the allegation against the petitioner was that when the complainant/opposite party, Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Ranchi, had inspected Hutar Mines in the district of Palamau had found irregularities of breach of Rules 8(1), (i), 8(1)(i), 8(1)(1), 8(1)(u), 8(?) and also breach of Rules 17 and 5-A, which all were punishable under Rule 22-A of the Payment of Wages (Mines) Rules, 1956, and he had submitted report. Similar breach of the Rules were found in respect of Cri. Misc. No. 1983 of 1987 (R), when the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Ranchi, had inspected the Darka Bukhuka Colliery of the Central Coal Fields Limited, in the District of Ranchi.
In Cri. Misc. No. 1369 of 1987 (R), the allegation against the petitionsr was that when the complainant/opposite party had visited Karanpura Dewir-hand Colliery in the district of Ranchi, he found that the persons were employed in the Mines for more than six days in a week including on Sundays, the same constituted an offence punishable under Sec. 67 read with Sec. 18 of the Mines Act, 1952 .
In Cri. Misc. Not 1372 of 1987 (R), the allegation against the petitioner was the same, as stated in Cri. Misc. No. 1369 of 1987 (R), that the persons were employed in the Mines for more than six days in a week including on Sundays and the same constituted an offence punishable under Sec. 67 read with Sec. 81 of the Mines Act, 1952 , and in this case the Mines involved was Dakra Colliery in the district of Ranchi.
5. The Labor Enforcement Officer (Central), Ranchi, had submitted prosecution report in all the aforesaid cafes as a result of which cognizance in all the aforesaid cases for the offences as indicated above ware taken against the petitioner, which are being challenged in these four applications before this Court.
6. Mr. K.D. Chatterjee, Sr. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner in all the aforesaid cases,
