LAWS(BOM)-2024-9-11

SYED NAEEMUDDIN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On September 12, 2024
Syed Naeemuddin Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners/employees of the then MSEDCL had impugned the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class issuing process against them for the offences punishable under Ss. 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code in Criminal Case No.114 of 2008 dtd. 17/6/2008 and the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli passed in Criminal Revision No.17 of 2008 dtd. 8/9/2008 dismissing the revision.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that before the complaint was filed against the petitioners, an FIR was registered against the complainant for the offences punishable under Ss. 353 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003. However to counter that case, respondent no.2 had filed the false complaint against them. He submitted that the petitioners being public servants, the order issuing the process against them could not be passed unless the sanction is obtained as provided under Sec. 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code. No Court can take the cognizance against the public servants, who are the public servants defined under Sec. 21 of the Indian Penal Code or any other relevant provisions of law. To bolster his argument, he relied on the case of Lalankumar Singh and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC Online SC 1383 and State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajanlal and Others, 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335. He also submitted the notification of the State of Maharashtra dtd. 4/6/2005 to bolster his argument that the entire property of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board with assets and liability has been vested with the State Government.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioners were not the public servants at the relevant time. They were the employees of a Board run by the Government. Therefore, sanction under Sec. 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code was not essential. The Court had directed an inquiry under Sec. 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code. After receiving the report, the learned Magistrate has applied his mind and satisfied that there was a case for issuing process against the petitioner. The case laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners do not support his contention. Those are on different facts.