High Court of Himachal Pradesh Shimla Cr · 2008

The Hon(cid:146)ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr.Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent: Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.A.G. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) The petitioner before this Court is facing trial before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.5, Shimla. He is charged with having committed offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B if the Indian Penal Code. It is not necessary to give the detailed facts of the case. The allegations against the petitioner are that he while working as superintending Engineer (Design) in Nathpa Jhakri Power Corporation misused his authority to favour his son and other persons and committed the aforesaid offences. During the course of trial an application was moved on behalf of the petitioner praying that proceedings be dropped and the petitioner be discharged in view of the fact that no sanction to prosecute the petitioner had been taken in terms of Section 56 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. At this stage it would be pertinent to 2 mention that the offence is stated to have been committed prior to the Electricity Act, 2003 have come into force and therefore the proceedings shall be governed under the Indian Electricity Act,

1910. The aforesaid application was rejected by the trial Court. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Criminal Revision No.24-S/10 of 2007 before the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla which was rejected on 18.2.2008 and hence the present petition. The short question which arises for decision in this case is whether sanction was required to prosecute the petitioner or not. The charge against the petitioner that he while working as Superintending Engineer (Design), NJPC, Shimla misused his position and granted benefits to non-existent firms which according to the prosecution were benami Firm of his son Nirjeendu Kishore and one Ramesh Tiwari. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner with dishonest intention and with deceitful means awarded the contract to a benami firm in the name of one Anil Kumar and entire work of the firm has been done by the son of the petitioner and one Ramesh Tiwari.

Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that under Section 56 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and Section 82 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, the petitioner could not be prosecuted without sanction of the appropriate authority. Section 56 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 reads as follows: (cid:147)56.Protection for acts done in good faith.-(1)No suit, prosecution or other proceeding shall lie against any public 3 officer, or any servant of a local authority, for anything done, or in good faith purporting to be done, under this Act. (2)No Court shall take cognizance of an offence under this Act, by a public officer except with the sanction- (a)in the case of a person employed in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government; and (b)in any other case, of the State Government. (cid:148) Section 82 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 reads as follows: (cid:147)82.Protection of persons acting under this Act.-No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against any member or officer or other employee of the Board for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act.

(cid:148) Section 82 of the Electricity (Supply) Act is para-meteria with Section 56(1) of the Electricity Act, 1910. It is apparent that these provisions are meant to protect the employees of the Government and other local authorities from frivolous prosecutions. In the present case, the prosecution is not on account of anything which is purported to have been done by the petitioner in good faith in the discharge of his duties but as per the allegations of the prosecution it is on account of the misuse of his authority that the petitioner is being prosecuted. In my view the protection of Section 56(1) or Section 82 is not available to the petitioner in the present case. As far as Section 56(2) is concerned the same has no applicability to the present case. Under Section 56(2) sanction is only required when the public officer is charged with having committed an act which is an offence under the Act itself.

In the present case the petitioner is charged with having committed offences which are punishable under the Indian Penal Code and 4 therefore Section 56(2) have no application to the facts of the present case. Learned Sessions Judge has cited a number of authorities while taking the view that no sanction was required. I feel that the learned Sessions Judge correctly decided this question. Shri Ramakant Sharma has tried to take me through the entire facts of the case to show that no offence is made out. I have not gone into the merits of the case since the application which was filed before the learned trial Court was only that the petitioner could not be prosecuted without obtaining sanction. This question has been decided against the petitioner and therefore it is not necessary to go into other facets of the case. In view of the above discussion there is no merit in the petition which is dismissed. May 8, 2008 PV ( Deepak Gupta ), Judge.