NAGENDRA PRASAD SINHA, Vs. BRAJNANDAN PRASAD AND THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') by the petitioners to quash an order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan, passed on the 9th July, 1974, taking cognizance against them for an offence under Sec. 448 of the Indian Penal Code. On the 15th February, 1973, opposite party no. 1 filed a petition of complaint before the Sub -divisional Magistrate, Siwan, alleging therein that, on the 22nd January, 1973, at 11 a.m. the petitioners had entered into two shop premises of his masters one was a liquor shop situated in Telhata Bazar and the other was also a liquor shop situated in Sharda Nandan Bazar, in the town of Siwan. The proprietors of the two shops aforesaid were Ramnath Prasad and his son, Tripurari Saran, respectively. The complainant described himself as the Manager of the two shops aforesaid and in that capacity filed the petition of complaint for offences under Ss. 161, 379, 427 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 42 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.

(2.) The learned Sub -Divisional Magistrate referred the matter for inquiry to Shree J. Jha, Magistrate and, on transfer of Shree J. Jha, it was sent to Shree Puri for inquiry. Subsequently, on the 10th June, 1974, Shree Puri sent back the papers to the Chief Judicial Magistrate without completing the inquiry. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, however, by his impugned order, held that no case had been made out against the petitioners for the offences alleged in the petition of complaint. He, however, found that an offence under Sec. 448 of the Indian Penal Code was made out against them. Hence, he summoned the petitioners to stand their trial for an offence under Sec. 448 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that all the four petitioners happen to be public servants, being employees of the Bihar State Electricity Board - -petitioner no. 1 was the S.D.O., Electric Supply Division, Siwan; petitioner no. 2 was an Electrical Overseer at Siwan; petitioner no. 3 was a Work Sarkar and petitioner no. 4 was an Electric Mistry of the Electric Supply Division, Siwan. It has been submitted that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had lost sight of the fact that, under the provisions of Sec. 20 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, these petitioners were duly authorised by the Electricity Board and were competent to enter the premises and remove the fittings and other apparatus and under the provisions of Sec. 56 of the said Act (1) no suit, prosecution or other proceedings shall lie against any public officer, or any servant of a local authority for any thing done, or in good faith purporting to be done under the Act; and (ii) no Court shall take cognizance of an offence under the 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. It has also been submitted that the learned Magistrate has not taken notice of Sec. 81 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, which reads as follows: -