V MOHANAKRISHNAN Vs. SHANMUGHAVADIVU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitions is a third party to the proceedings in C.C. No. 17490 of 1978 on the file of the Second Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras. The respondent herein has filed a complaint against the former Special Officer, Executive Officer and an Electrician of the Triplicane Urban Co-operative Society Limited, hereinafter referred to as The T.U.C.S. Ltd., for certain offences alleged to have been committed by them in connection with the termination of the electricity supply to the portion occupied by her as a lessee. In order to prove her case, the respondent took out an application for the summoning of two files from the office of the T.U.C.S. Limited. One file relates to the correspondence between the officers of the T.U.C.S. Limited and the Accommodation Controller regarding the disconnection of electricity supply id the complainants portion and the other file relates to certain disciplinary proceedings taken by the T.U.C.S. Limited, against One Kadirvelu, Accountant of the T.U.C.S. Limited on the ground that he had joined hands with the complainant indulged in certain unlawful acts, such as giving Unauthorised supply of electricity supply to the portion occupied by the complainant from the electrical fittings in the portion occupied by him. After the files had been sent for, the petitioner herein, who is a Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies and working on deputation with the T.U.C.S. Limited has filed the petition stating that the files contain official notes arid confidential instructions issued by a public Officer and as such they cannot be disclosed to anyone, as otherwise public interest, will suffer. In short, the petitioner claimed privilege from disclosing contents of the files under section 124 of the Evidence Act. The respondent opposed the petition. The learned Magistrate, after considering the matter, has held that the petitioner is not a public officer and the disclosure of the contents of the files will not affect public interest in any manner. Consequently he has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner. It is against that order the present petition has been filed under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, for setting aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate.

(2.) On a short ground, this petition deserves to fail in so far as one of the files is concerned. In S.S. Dhanona v. Municipal Corporation, Delhi and others1, the Supreme Court has held that a co-operative society is not a statutory body, because it is not created by a statute and that consequently a member of the Indian Administrative Service whose services are placed at the disposal of a cooperative society will not be a public servant within the meaning of clause (12) of section 21 of the Penal Code for purposes of section 197, Criminal Procedure Code. The ratio in that case will apply with equal force, to the facts of this case. Hence, in so far as the first file relating to the correspondence between the officers of the T.U.C.S. Limited, and the Accommodation Controller regarding the disconnection of electricity supply to the respondent herein is concerned, there can be no plea of privilege against the disclosure of the contents of that file on the ground of public interest.

(3.) In so far as the other file is concerned, its contents are entirely outside the scope of the enquiry in this case. That file relates to the T.U.C.S. Limited taking disciplinary action against Kadirvelu, who was formerly working as Accountant in the T.U.C.S. Limited. It would appear that charges were (framed against him, one of the charges being that he unauthorisedly gave electricity supply to the complainant in the case, after the supply had been disconnected by the society for justifiable reasons. As to what happened between the T.U.C.S. Limited and Kadirvelu and what charges were framed against him etc., will not be germane for consideration in the criminal complaint filed by the complainant. In such circumstances, the order of the Magistrate as regards the second file cannot be sustained. This is on the ground that the contents of the file are irrelevant for consideration and not on the ground that the petitioner can claim privilege in respect of the contents of the file. Moreover, when disciplinary action has been taken against Kadirvelu, it would not be in the interests of the society to disclose the contents of that file in the present proceedings, especially when the offence complained of had taken place prior to the disciplinary action being taken against Kadirvelu.