NAND LAL Vs. SHRI PRITHVI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question requiring determination in this reference is whether Shri Prithvisingh, Superintending Engineer, Rajasthan Electricity Board in the year 1962 and now Additional Chief Engineer and Shri S. B. Chaurasiya, Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Electricity Board, officers of the Government of Rajasthan and functioning on deputation with the Rajasthan State Electricity Board, are public officers within the meaning of Section 56, Sub-section (2) of the Indian Electricity Act of 1910, and as such, cannot be prosecuted for an offence under the Electricity Act without the sanction of the Rajasthan State?

(2.) THE facts leading to the reference may be stated at the outset:-It is common ground that on 12. 1. 1962 Shri Prithvisingh and Shri S. B. Chaurasiya (hereinafter referred to as the accused) acting on behalf of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board discontinued the supply of electricity to the complainant Shri Nandlal. The aeeused-non-petitioner entertained suspicion that the complainant had been committing theft pf electrical energy and consequently, they discontinued the supply. It may also be mentioned that the Rajasthan State Electricity Board lodged information with the police to prosecute the complainant for an offence under Section 379, I. P. C. On investigation, however, a case of theft was not established against the complainant and the police filed a final report in the matter. Thereafter Shri Nandlal filed a complaint against the Chairman, Rajasthan State Electricity Board and the two accused non-petitioners, accusing them of an offence under Section 42 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate Sikar. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate treated the Chairman, Rajasthan State Electricity Board as a Public Officer and did not issue any process against him. A case under Section 42 of the Act was, however, registered against the accused and processes were issued against them. Before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate they raised an objection that their prosecution was barred in the absence of the sanction of the Rajasthan State in view of the provisions of Section 56, Subsection (2) of the Act. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate held that in view of the provisions of Section 81 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 read with Section 5 of the Act the accused should be treated as public servants within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. He also held that Section 56, Sub-section (2) of the Act is the most appropriate section for giving right of privilege granted by the legislature to the accused in this complaint. He repelled the arguments of the complainant that the accused could claim protection only on proof of their having acted in good faith, The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, however, did not revoke the order taking cognizance against the accused but on the other hand, stopped proceedings under Section 249, I. P. C. and directed the complainant to obtain sanction of the State Government for the prosecution of the accused. Shri Nandlal filed a revision in the Court of the District Magistrate, Sikar. The District Magistrate recorded the following conclusions:-

(3.) THE District Magistrate further found fault with the initial order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, dated 8. 3. 1963 taking cognizance of the case against the accused. He also observed that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was not justified in invoking Section 249, I. P. C. to the present complaint case and that an order stopping proceedings was not good in law. According to him, the Magistrate should have revoked his order taking cognizance against the accused. He has, therefore, made the present reference which, as stated above, raises the question formulated above.