Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
A. N. DIKSHITA
RANGESH SHARMA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
CRI. MISC. APPLN. 11610 Of 1986
Decided On : 12/22/1988
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 482 - QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS - PUBLIC SERVANTS - PROTECTION FROM PROSECUTION - ELECTRICITY ACT 1910, SECTION 56 - ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACT 1948, SECTION 82 - SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION - JURISDICTION OF COURT - INHERENT POWERS OF HIGH COURT.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants, two officers of the U.P. State Electricity Board, were accused of forgery and other offenses related to the transfer of an employee. The complainant, the transferred employee, alleged that the applicants had forged a relieving order to effect the transfer. The applicants filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to quash the proceedings against them, arguing that they were protected from prosecution under Section 56 of the Indian Electricity Act 1910 and Section 82 of the Electricity (Supply) Act 1948, and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case without a valid sanction.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the applicants were indeed protected from prosecution under Sections 56 and 82 of the Electricity Acts, as they were public servants acting in good faith in the discharge of their official duties. The Court further held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case without a valid sanction, and that the absence of such a sanction rendered the proceedings void ab initio. The Court also noted that the complainant had already filed a writ petition challenging the transfer, and that there was no evidence that the applicants had gained any benefit from the alleged forgery.
Issues: 1. Whether the applicants were protected from prosecution under Sections 56 and 82 of the Electricity Acts. 2. Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case without a valid sanction. 3. Whether the proceedings against the applicants should be quashed.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the applicants were protected from prosecution under Sections 56 and 82 of the Electricity Acts because: - They were public servants acting in good faith in the discharge of their official duties. - The complainant had not obtained a valid sanction for their prosecution. 2. The Court held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case without a valid sanction because: - Section 197 of the CrPC prohibits courts from taking cognizance of offenses alleged to have been committed by public servants while acting in the discharge of their official duties without a prior sanction. - The absence of a valid sanction rendered the proceedings void ab initio.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the application and quashed the proceedings against the applicants, including the order of the Judicial Magistrate, the order of the revisional Court, and the complaint filed against them.
( 1 ) BY means of this application under S. 482, Cr. P. C. applicants, Rangesh Sharma, Assistant Engineer, Meters Vidyut Parikshan Sakha Etah and Mahendra Deo Sharma, Executive Engineer, Vidyut Parlikshan Khan, Mainpuri have prayed for quashing the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Etah dt. 6-6-85 (Annexure-3) in Criminal Case No. 1904 of 1984 and the order dt. 5-3-86 (Annexure-4) passed by learned V Addl. District Judge, Etah. The appellants have also prayed for quashing the complaint Annexure 15-2-80 filed by Opposite Party No. 2 Jagdish Chandra Sharma filed under Ss. 466/467/420/218/427, I. P. C.
( 2 ) FACTS as they are revealed are that opposite party No. 2 Jagdish Chandra Sharma was working as Junior Meter Tester in the office of the Electricity Test Division, Etah, Applicant No. 1 Rangesh Sharma was posted there as Assistant Engineer (Meters) in the said division while applicant No. 2 Mahendra Deo Sharma was the Executive Engineer Electricity Test Division, Mainpuri. It transpires that per order dt. 24-3-77 the U. P. State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) in supercession of D. O. No. 3576-F/ee-B-207/1963 dt. May 29, 1963 issued the above order dt. March 24, 1977 by which considering the fact that the post of Meter Reader, Sub-Station Attendant, Switch Board Attendant, Junior Meter Tester and Repairer enjoy the same qualification and scale of pay, formed a combined cadre of such personnel. A combined seniority list of these four categories of employees was also directed to be prepared and it was also made clear that these four categories of employees shall be interchangeable. Copies of this order were sent for information and guidance of Field Officers and also for ensuring that none of the aforesaid categories are allowed to remain at a particulars post for more than three years keeping the administrative point of view. According to the above board order dt. 24-3-77 on S-1 M. D. Sharma, Superintending Engineer and in view of the Administrative work Jagdish Chandra Sharma opposite party No. 2 who was posted as Junior Meter Tester vide Officer Memo No. 10803/e. L. C. (M) dt. 8-7-78 was transferred vide offence Memo No. 11981-ELO E-2 dt. 31-7-78. He was transferred and posted on his original post under the Electricity Distribution Sub-Division I Etah as Sub-Station Attendant with immediate effect in the interest of the work.
( 3 ) AGGRIEVED opposite party No. 2 filed a writ petition in the Lucknow Bench of the High Court and the following order was passed on 8-9-78 :"notice has been taken by Sri K. B. Sinha on behalf of the respondents. As the impugned order can affect the right of the petitioner seniority which may not be liable to be compensated adequately in terms of money, we issue an interim order restraining the respondents not to effect petitioners seniority on the basis of the impugned orders dt. 24-3-1977 and 31-7-1978 (Annexures 8 and 10 to the writ petition) so as to effect the petitioners right claimed in this petition. "/- Hari Swarup sd/- U. C. Srivastava. " it may also be mentioned here that Jagdish Chandra Sharma, Opposite Party No. 2 was working at the relevant time as a Fine Mechanic purely on temporary basis and was liable to be transferred as soon as some other incumbent is appointed on that post. One Tara Chand was permanently posted as Fine Mechanic in the Electricity Test Division, Mainpur and consequently Jagdish Chandra Sharma was transferred as Sub-Station Attendant-vide order dt. 31-7-78.
( 4 ) IT is alleged by opposite party No. 2 in the complaint that on coming to know of the order dt. 8-9-78 passed by a Division Bench of this Court at Lucknow the applicants and the Superintending Engineer exercised pressure on opposite party No. 2 when opposite party No. 2 went to serve the order dt. 8-9-78 by committing forgery. It was shown that the applicant has been relied on 2-9-78.
( 5 ) IT would thus be apparent that the complaint has been filed under Ss.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
