Back
2019 Supreme(All) 451
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J.
AYUSH KUMAR AND OTHERS - Appellants
Vs.
STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER - Respondents
Application U/S 482 No. 17421 of 2011
Decided On : 10-04-2019
H.P. Dube, Adv., Amrit Lal Yadav, Adv., Baleshwar Chaturvedi, Adv., Nazrul Islam Jafri, Adv., Sushil Kumar Srivastava, Adv., Abhishek Kumar Yadav, Adv., Bhola Nath Yadav, Adv., Om Prakash Yadav, Adv., Kamal Singh, Adv., Siya Ram Yadav, Adv.
Headnote:
The court quashed the summoning order and further criminal proceedings against the applicants, who were public servants, as they were entitled to protection under Section 168 of the Electricity Act and prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC was required for their prosecution.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants, who were public servants working in the Electricity Department, were prosecuted for allegedly forging a notice and showing a bogus auction date, resulting in the illegal attachment and auction of the opposite party's property. The applicants challenged the prosecution, arguing that they were protected under Section 168 of the Electricity Act and that prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC was required for their prosecution.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the applicants were entitled to protection under Section 168 of the Electricity Act, which provides immunity from prosecution for acts done in good faith in the discharge of official duties. The court also held that prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC was required for the prosecution of the applicants, as they were public servants accused of an offense allegedly committed while acting in the discharge of their official duties.
Issues: 1. Whether the applicants were entitled to protection under Section 168 of the Electricity Act? 2. Whether prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC was required for the prosecution of the applicants?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the applicants were entitled to protection under Section 168 of the Electricity Act, which provides immunity from prosecution for acts done in good faith in the discharge of official duties. The court reasoned that the applicants' actions in issuing the notice and conducting the auction were done in the course of their official duties as employees of the Electricity Department. 2. The court held that prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC was required for the prosecution of the applicants, as they were public servants accused of an offense allegedly committed while acting in the discharge of their official duties. The court reasoned that the requirement of prior sanction is intended to protect public servants from frivolous or malicious prosecutions.
Final Decision: The court quashed the summoning order and further criminal proceedings against the applicants.
Sanjay Kumar Singh, J.
Heard Sri D.P. Dhakarey and Sri Baleshwar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Rakesh Doneria (Opposite Party no.2), who appeared in person and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State/opposite party no.1 and perused the record.
2. The applicants invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have filed this application with a prayer to quash the prosecution of the applicants as well as summoning order dated 30.04.2011 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.12, Agra against them in Criminal Case No.2572 of 2010 (State vs. Iyush Kumar and others) arising out of Case Crime No.418 of 2010, under Sections 467, 471, 120-B, 192 I.P.C., Police Station Etmuddula, District Agra.
3. Issues involve in the instant case for consideration before this Court are as follows:-
(a) Whether act done by the applicants in the present case was in official capacity in discharge of their official duty?
(b) Whether applicants, who are public servant are protected under the provision of 168 of the Electricity Act?
(c) Whether prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is necessary in the present case before prosecuting the applicants?
(d) Whether charge-sheet could be submitted in this case against the applicants without prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C.?
(e) Whether Magistrate concerned has committed legal error in taking cognizance and summoning the applicants to face trial in absence of prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C.?
4. This case has checkered history of litigations between the Electricity Department and opposite party no.2. Filtering out unnecessary details, the basic facts of the case in brief, which are relevant with regard to relief claimed by the applicants by means of the present application are being mentioned hereinafter.
5. At the relevant point of time as well as at the time of passing the impugned summoning order dated 30.04.2011, the applicant no.1 was posted as Executive Engineer, Electricity Urban Distribution Division-III, Yamuna Bank Power House, Agra. The applicant no.2 was posted as Executive Engineer (Allahabad) Office of the Chief Engineer, Ghaziabad Zone, Ghaziabad. The applicant No.3 was posted as Office Assistant-II, Electricity Urban Distribution-III, Yamuna Bank Power House, Agra. The applicant No.4 was posted as Office Assistant-III, Electricity Civil Transmission Division, 400 K.V., Sub-Division, Pili Pokhar, Agra. The opposite party no.2 was consumer of Electricity Department and at the relevant point of time was running a small scale industry engaged in manufacture of agricultural machinery, thrashers, trailer, trolly etc.
6. The applicants through the present application have come up with the case that the opposite party No. 2 was a small consumer having electricity connection of 28 KVA in the year 1980, which was subsequently enhanced and the contracted load of the opposite party No. 2 extended 331 KVA on 31.03.1994.
7. While issuing the Sealing Certificate No. 969 dated 11.07.1994, the C.T. ratio of the metering cubical was incorrectly mentioned as 20/5, whereas the correct C.T. ratio was 30/5. Since the incorrect C.T. ratio was mentioned in the Sealing Certificate, therefore, the correct multiplier could not be applied while generating the bills and consequently 1/3 quantum of electrical energy consumed by the opposite party No. 2 remained unbilled.
8. The metering cubical of opposite party No.2 was thoroughly checked up on 03.07.1996 and checking was carried out by the Officers of U.P. Power Corporation Limited in presence of the opposite party No. 2 Sri Rakesh Doneria and during the course of checking incorrect mentioning of C.T. ratio in the earlier Sealing Certificate was found out and a fresh Sealing Certificate was prepared on 03.07.1996 mentioning the correct C.T. ratio as 30/5, which was duly signed and received by the opposite party No. 2 Sri Rakesh Doneria.
9. Although the checking was carried out in presence of the opp
