LAWS(GJH)-1995-9-44

JAWAHAR KARUNASHANKER ADHAVARYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On September 18, 1995
Jawahar Karunashankar Adharuya Appellant
V/S
State of Gujarat and Another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, question relating to sanction for prosecuting the petitioner-officials of the Gujarat Electricity Board under Sec. 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is involved, on the following facts and circumstances:-

(2.) Criminal Case No. 703 of 1982 was filed by the second respondent, Parmar Jayantibhai Tapubhai, in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Rajula against the petitioners herein for the offences under Secs. 352, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant alleged that the petitioners had come for meterchecking and its reading at his factory. The petitioners assaulted and used criminal force on the complainant otherwise than on grave and sudden provocation and thereby committed offence Sec. 352 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent No. 2- complainant also alleged that the petitioners intentionally insulted and abused the complainant, as he requested to remove the electrical meter after drawing necessary Panchnama. The petitioners-accused are also alleged to have aided or abetted in commission of the offences under Secs. 352 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and thus committed offence under Sec. 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) By application dated March 24, 1983 at Exh. 17, the learned Advocate for the petitioners-accused contended that the petitioners are alleged to have committed offence when they went for meter-reading at the factory of the complainant. The petitioners are the servants of the Gujarat Electricity Board and are, therefore, 'public servants' within the meaning of Sec. 21 of the Indian Penal Code. They are also public servants within the meaning of Sec. 81 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. There was no sanction to prosecute the petitioners under Sec. 197 of the Cr. P. C. and therefore, the Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the alleged offences. It was, therefore, requested that the Court should discharge the petitioners.