S.S.DEWAN,J - (1.) THE only question which calls for determination in this revision petition is, whether the order of the learned Magistrate in dropping proceedings against the accused-petitioner in the complaint filed by respondent No. 1 against him is legally justified. The learned trial Magistrate dropped the proceedings against the petitioner on the ground that he could be prosecuted only after obtaining prior sanction and that he was fully protected under the provisions of Section 56 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 read with Section 82 of Indian Electricity (Supply) Act 1948.
(2.) IN the complaint which was filed by respondent No. 1, it was alleged that the complainant Joginder Kumar was working as Assistant in the office of Senior Accounts Officer, Hydel Project, H.S.E.B., Yamuna Nagar and since the behaviour of the petitioner towards the complainant and his colleagues was not good, they sent a representation to the chairman, H.S.E.B., Chandigarh against the conduct of the petitioner and requested for his transfer to some other office in Haryana, but their representation was not considered. It was stated that on this ground the petitioner became annoyed with the complainant and his other colleagues. It was pleaded in the complaint that on 28.7.1983 (?) at about 3.40. While the complainant was on duty in the office where his co-accused were already sitting. The petitioner shouted abusive language and proclaimed that he (complainant) was not given permission to hold personal meeting with the Chief Engineer, H.S.E.B. and that when the complainant stated that he would move the higher authorities in that regard, the petitioner got enraged and caught hold of him (complainant) by his neck and when he tired to free from the clutches of the petitioner, the other accused started beating him with fists and blows at the instance of the petitioner and they also threatened him with dire consequences, in case he reported the matter to the higher authorities. The trial Magistrate summoned the petitioner who appeared and filed an application under Section 56 of the Indian Electricity Act for dismissal of the complainant. It was alleged that the occurrence took place in the office and the act was done in his official capacity and therefore, he could not be prosecuted in his individual capacity. The trial magistrate vide his order dated July 30, 1984, accepted the application of the petitioner and dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant. Feeling dissatisfied, the respondents went up in revision and the same was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge holding that neither Section 56 of the Indian Electricity Act nor Section 82 of the Electricity (Supply) Act was applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case inasmuch as allegation made by the complainant had nothing to do with the provisions of the said two Acts, and that abusing the Subordinate catching hold of him by his neck and threatening him to death and also giving him beating in his opinion, could not be termed as acting in the discharge of his official duties and therefore, sanction under Section 197 of the Code was not necessary. The learned Additional Sessions judge, set aside the order of the trial magistrate and remanded the case to him to proceed further in accordance with law and against this order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioner has now come up in revision. The main argument, in fact, the only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not appreciated the schemes of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and the Electricity (supply) Act, 1948, which clearly show that the public servants are to be saved from harassment for the acts done or intended to be done with their official status from frivolous complaints and that is why it has been provided in the said Acts that the employees will be protected from such prosecution unless there is sanction of the competent authority. I regret my inability to accept this contention. I have perused the provisions of Section 56 of the Indian Electricity Act as well as Section 8 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, wherein it has been provided that no suit, prosecution or other proceedings shall lie against any public officer or any servant of a local authority for anything done or in good faith purporting to be done under the said Act. The allegations made by the complainant against the petitioner have nothing to do with the provisions of the said two Acts. The allegations made by the complainant are that the petitioner used abusive language and his co-accused gave beating to respondent No. 1 at the instance of the petitioner. That being so, the petitioner could not claim protection under the above said two Acts. In the circumstances, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was justified in coming to the conclusion that the Trial Magistrate had committed an illegality by observing that the complaint filed by the complainant could not proceed against the petitioner in the absence of sanction from the appropriate authority and had also erred in holding that the alleged act of the petitioner was done by him in the discharge of his official duties and in good faith.
(3.) IT is now well settled that the question as to whether or not an offence committed by a public servant requires sanction under Section 197(1), Criminal Procedure Code, depends on the facts of each particular case. It was pointed out in Baij Nath v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR (1966 SC 220 :- "It is not every offence committed by a public servant that required sanction for prosecution under Section 197(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code; nor even very act done by him while he is actually engaged in the performance of his official duties, but where the act complained of is directly concerned with his official duties". ;