LALLAN CHOUBEY Vs. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has come to this Court under Section 482 Cr. P. C. quashing the order of cognizance dated 4-4-1978 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, in Session Case No. 77 of 1978 under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code which is now pending in the court of the learned IVth Addl. Sessions Judge, Dhanbad.

(2.) It appears that a complaint was filed by the then public prosecutor late J. B. Lala in the court of the learned Sessions Judge on 3-4-1978 saying that one S. R. Gope, the then CoaJ Mines Provident Fund Commissioner was appointed by the Central Government under Section 3-C(i) of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act of 1948'). The petitioner published a news item as the Editor of 'Sandesh Suman' making wild, deliberate and false allegations that there was nepotism, favouritism and casteism in the appointment of lower Division Clerks in the office of the Coal Mines Provident Fund by the said Commissioner. It was also said that two Clerks were appointed on an undertaking of payment of Rs. 5,000 each, out of which Rs. 2500 were paid in advance and the rest were to be paid in due course of time and that when they did not pay the balance of the amount their services were terminated. It was turthar said in the complaint that the said report was published with imputation and with an intention to harm the reputation of the Mines Commissioner, S. R. Gope. The complaint mentioned that the sanction of the Central Government as required under Section 199 (4) Cr. P. C. has been obtained which was enclosed with the complaint petition. The learned Sessions Judge passed the impugned order dated 4-4-1978 taking cognizance of the offence under Section 500 I. P. C. against the petitioner after hearing the Additional P. P. and seeing the complaint petition. The accused was then summoned for appearance on 29-5-1978. The petitioner appeared and was granted bail. No witness was said to have been examined so the petitioner came to this Court on 22-7-1985 against the said order of cognizance.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner jurged that the public servant in the employment of a corporate body under statute or under the Government Company cannot get the benefit of Section 199 (2) Cr. P. C. as he cannot be considered to be engaged in the affairs of the Union and the State. He has referred to and relied upon the two decisions one in the case of S. S. Dhanoa v. Municipal Corporation Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 1395 ; 1981 (3) SCC 431 and the other decision of a learned single Judge in the case of 5. Dashrath Rami Ready v. A. H. Dara, 1980 Cr LJ 377.