2023 Supreme(Gau) 25
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH, ITANAGAR BENCH
Nani Tagia, J.
Pradeep Gairola and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The State Of AP Represented by the Learned Public Prosecutor and ors. – Respondents
Crl.Rev.P. 2 of 2023
Decided On : 25-01-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ninnong Ratan
Employees of a Government of India undertaking are not entitled to protection under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as public servants.
Headnote:
Public Servants - Criminal Revision Petition - Forest Conservation Act, 1980, Assam Forest Regulation Act, 1891 - Sections 2(ii)(iii)(iv), 3A, 3B(1)(a)(b), 3B(2), 33, 34 & 35 - The court discussed the applicability of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to the employees of a Government of India undertaking and held that they are not entitled to protection under Section 197 as public servants.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, employees of NHIDCL, a Government of India undertaking, filed a criminal revision petition challenging the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, taking cognizance of a case against them under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and Assam Forest Regulation Act, 1891.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners, as employees of a Government of India undertaking, are not entitled to protection under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as public servants.
Issues: The main issue was whether the employees of a Government of India undertaking are considered public servants under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohd. Hadi Raja v. State of Bihar and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Pramod v. Sawant & anr. to establish that employees of public sector corporations are not entitled to protection under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as public servants.
Final Decision: The criminal revision petition was dismissed as the employees of NHIDCL, a Government of India undertaking, were not entitled to protection under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as public servants.
ORDER :
1. Heard Mr. Ninnong Ratan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Token Ete, learned Addl. P.P., appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1; and Mr. Yomi Riram, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of Respondents No. 2 & 3.
2. The petitioners, altogether 3(three) in nos., stating to be working as General Manager(Project), PMU-Basar, National Highways Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.(NHIDCL); Graduate Engineer, PMU-Basar, NHIDCL; and Executive Director (Projects), Regional Office, Itanagar, NHIDCL; have filed this criminal revision petition under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order, dated 02.11.2021, passed by the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Siang District, Aalo, in Complaint Case No. 10/2021 u/ss. 2(ii)(iii)(iv), 3A, 3B(1)(a)(b), 3B(2) of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980; and Sections 33, 34 & 35 of the Assam Forest Regulation Act, 1891, whereby cognizance of Complaint Case No. 10/2021 has been taken against them and they were issued with the summons fixing the next date of appearance on 12.04.2022.
3. The impugned order, dated 02.11.2021, passed by the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Siang District, Aalo, in Complaint Case No. 10/2021, has been challenged by the petitioners primarily on the ground that since they are the officials of the National Highways Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (NHIDCL), which is a Government of India undertaking, therefore, the petitioners are the public servants within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Siang District, Aalo, could not have taken cognizance of the Complaint Case No. 10/2021 without prosecution sanction having been granted by the competent authority in terms of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
4. Mr. Ete, learned Addl. P.P., on the other hand, has contended that the employees of the Public Sector Corporations are not the public servants within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code so as to entitle protection granted under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In support of his contention, Mr. Ete, learned Addl. P.P., Arunachal Pradesh, has relied on 2(two) decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, reported in (1998) 5 SCC 91(Mohd. Hadi Raja v. State of Bihar); and (2019) 16 SCC 63(Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Pramod v. Sawant & anr.).
5. In Mohd. Hadi Raja(supra), in Paragraphs No. 19 to 27, thereof; it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court as under:
“19. 'Public Servant' has not been defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure but Section 2 [Y] of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the words used in the Criminal procedure Code but not defined in the Criminal Procedure Code but defined in the Indian Penal Code shall be deemed to have the same meaning attributed to them in the Indian Penal Code. Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code defines 'public servant' and therefore, the expression 'public servant' will have the same meaning in the Criminal procedure Code. It will be appropriate to refer to clauses 9 and 12 of Section 21 IPC.
“21. Ninth - Every officer whose duty it is as such officer to take, receive, keep or expend any property on behalf of the Government or to make any survey, assessment or contract on behalf of the government or to execute any revenue process or to investigate or to report on any matter affecting the pecuniary interests of the government or to make, authenticate or keep any document relating to the pecuniary interests of the government or to prevent the infraction of any law for the protection of the pecuniary interests of the government.
***
Twelfth. - Every person-
(a) in the service or pay of the government or remunerated by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty by the government;
(b) in the service or pay of a local authority, a corpo