SUDARSHAN RAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint case bearing No. 1400(C) of 2002 on 12.12.2002 alleging that the petitioners were employees of the Electricity Board. THEy were required to replace the defective transformer in the locality of the complainant. THE new transformer upon arrival was installed at another location. On protest, the petitioners abused the complainant and others and filed a false case against the boys of the locality. THE petitioners taking undue advantage of their official position, had innocent children of the locality put behind bars. THEy called the complainant and other boys of the locality to their office and then slapped and abused them. On these allegations cognizance was taken on 19.2.2003 against the petitioners under Sections 323 and 504 of the Penal Code.

(2.) SRI Vinay Kirti Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners confined his submissions to challenge the proceeding and the order of cognizance only on the ground of lack of sanction. It was submitted that on the face of the allegations without further more, the same was concerned with and related to performance of official duties by the petitioners. He next submitted that under Section 81 of the Electricity (Supply) Act. 1948 all members officers and employees of the Board shall be deemed, when acting or purporting to act in pursuance of any of the provisions of this Act, to be Public Servants within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 82 of the said Act provided that no suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against any member or officers or Page 1370 other employees of the Board for anything done in good faith or intended to be done under this Act. Section 56 of the Indian Electricity Act. 1910 provided that no suit, prosecution or other proceeding shall lie against any public officer or servant of a local authority for anything done or purported to be done under the said Act and that no court shall take cognizance of an offence against a public officer under the said Act except with the sanction of the Central Government or the State Government as the case may be.

(3.) A constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Matajog Dobey v. H.C. Bihari while considering the scope of sanction Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. held in the relevant extract in paragraph 17 as follows: ...There must be a reasonable connection between the Act and the official duty. It does not matter even if the act exceeds what is strictly necessary for the discharge of the duty, as this question will arise only at a later stage when the trial proceeds on merit. What we must find out is whether the Act and the official duty are so inter related that one can postulate reasonably that it was done by the accused in performance of the official duty, though possibly in excess of the needs and the requirements of the situation.