SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1979 Supreme(HP) 42

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
T.R.HANDA
DARSHAN KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
SUSHIL KUMAR - Respondent
Cr. Revn. No. 41 of 1976
Decided On : 07/11/1979

Advocates Appeared:
For petitioners:R. N. Malhotra and Mrs. Pritima Malhotra. For respondents: Kearishwar.

A public servant is entitled to the protection of Section 197 of the CrPC if the act complained of was committed in the discharge of their official duty and there was a reasonable connection between the act and the official duty.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 197 - PUBLIC SERVANT - PROTECTION FROM PROSECUTION - ACT COMMITTED IN DISCHARGE OF OFFICIAL DUTY - REASONABLE CONNECTION BETWEEN ACT AND OFFICIAL DUTY - TEST.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a company director, filed a criminal complaint against 63 respondents, including three public servants, alleging offenses related to criminal trespass, theft, and mischief. The Chief Judicial Magistrate summoned only 21 respondents and refused to take cognizance against the three public servants without the sanction of the State Government under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), as the alleged acts were committed while they were acting in their official capacities.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Chief Judicial Magistrate was correct in refusing to take cognizance against the three public servants without prior sanction from the State Government. The court found that the acts complained of were committed by the public servants in the discharge of their official duties and were reasonably connected to their official duty, as they were responsible for ensuring the timely completion of a bridge construction project.

Issues: 1. Whether the acts complained of against the public servants were committed in the discharge of their official duties. 2. Whether there was a reasonable connection between the acts complained of and the official duties of the public servants.

Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the test of whether the commission or neglect of the public servants to commit the acts complained of could have made them answerable for a charge of dereliction of their official duties. The court found that the public servants were responsible for ensuring the timely completion of the bridge construction project and that their actions in taking control of the site and starting construction work were directly related to this duty. Therefore, the court concluded that the acts complained of were committed in the discharge of their official duties and were reasonably connected to their official duty.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner, upholding the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

JUDGMENT

T. R. Handa, J.—The petitioner herein filed a criminal complaint under sections 143, 148, 149, 379, 380, 382, 452, 453, 454 and 461, I. P. C. against all the 63 respondents in the court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chamba which complaint was later on with the enforcement of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 transferred to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba. Respondents Nos. J, 3 and 4 are admittedly public servants not removable from office save by or with the permission of the State Government. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after recording the preliminary evidence of the petitioner, vide his order dated 10-6-1976 summoned only 21 out of 63 respondents under sections 143, 379, 380 and 461 read with section 149, I. P. C. As regards respondents Nos. 1, 3 and 4 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate observed that he could not take cognizance against these respondents without the sanction of the State Government as contemplated by section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the act complained of against them was committed by them while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their official duties. He accordingly refused to summon these three respondents.

2. The petitioner has now approached this Court in revision and has challenged the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 10-6-1976 in so far only as it lays down that he could not take cognizance of the offences against respondents Nos. 1, 3 and 4 without the prior sanction of the State Government under section 197, Cr- P. C.

3. Thus the sole question that falls for consideration in this revision is with regard to the application of the provisions of section 197, Cr. P. C. on the facts of the present case. The very nature cf the case, therefore, demands that the facts should be set out at some length.

4. The petitioner is the Director Incharge of Messrs. Stee-Men Limited- This company entered into a contract with the President of India through the then Executive Engineer, Chamba Division, H. P. P. W. D. Chamba for the construction of a 300 fit. span stiffened suspension bridge across Ravi at Chamba vide agreement No. 10 of 1969-70. As both the parties relied upon clauses 16 to 18 of this agreement, it is considered expedient to quote these clauses in extenso and the same are reproduced as under: Clauses 16.—The works comprised in this tender are to be commenced after 15 days on receipt of written orders from the Divisional Officer to commence work. The time allowed for carrying out the work as entered in the tender shall be strictly observed by the contractor on the part of the contractor and shall be reckoned from the fifteenth day after the date on which the orders to commence the work is issued to the contractor. The work shall throughout the stipulated period of the contract be proceeded with all due diligence and the contractor shall pay as compensation an amount equal to one per cent, or such smaller amount as the Superintending Engineer (whose decision in writing shall be final) may decide on the amount of the estimated cost of the whole work shown in the tender, for every day that the work remains uncommenced, or unfinished after the proper dates. And further, to ensure good progress during the execution of the work, the contractor shall be bound in all cases in which the time allowed for any work exceeds, one month (save for special jobs) to complete one eighth of the whole of the work before one fourth of the whole of the time allowed under the contract has elapsed, three eighth of the work before one half of such time has elapsed, and three-fourth of the whole of the work before three-fourth of such time has elapsed. However, for special jobs if a time schedule has been submitted by the contractor and the same has been accepted by the Engineer-in-Charge, the contractor shall comply with the said time schedule. In the event of the contractor failing to comply with this condition he shall be liable to pay as compensation an













Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top