IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.8410 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
1. N. NAGARAJU, S/O L. NARAYANA, AGED 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION : ASST. ENGINEER (ELE.), BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED, 07-SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, UNIT-II, MARATHAHALLI BRANCH, BENGALURU, RESIDING AT No.402, G-2, GALAXY APARTMENTS, SRINIVASPURA MAIN ROAD, HALAGE VADERAHALLI, RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 098.
2. C. VISHWANATH, S/O CHANDRASHETTY, AGED 53 YEARS, OCCUPATION : JUNIOR ENGINEER (ELE.) BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED, 07-SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, UNIT-II, MARATHAHALLI BRANCH, BENGALURU, RESIDING AT No.19/A, 14TH ‘A’ CROSS, GIRINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 085. …PETITIONERS ( BY SHRI P. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY HAL POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU CITY, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. SMT. SUNITHA H.M. W/O BABU REDDY, 2ND CROSS, #471, OPP. KIDS GLOBAL SCHOOL, MARATHAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 037. RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT No.1) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 06.08.2018 PASSED BY THE XIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (MAYOHALL UNIT CCH- 22), BENGALURU, IN CRL.R.P No.25054/2018 THEREBY REJECTING THE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 26.02.2018 PASSED BY THE XLIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU, IN C.C. No.58019/2016 AND CONSEQUENTLY, DISCHARGE THE PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NOs.1 AND 2 AND ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Petitioners Nos.1 and 2 are working as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) and Junior Engineer (Electrical) respectively, in Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited.
2. On 01.09.2016, respondent No.2 filed F.I.R. No.530/2016 before H.A.L. Police Station, Bengaluru City, alleging that she had suffered electric shock due to a live wire, which was not properly insulated. Accordingly, F.I.R., was registered against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’).
3. After investigation, Police filed charge sheet in C.C. No.58019/2016 before XLIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayohall, Bengaluru City. Petitioners moved an application before the learned Magistrate under Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’), seeking discharge. The said application has been rejected by the learned Magistrate on 26.02.2018. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners unsuccessfully challenged the said order in Criminal Revision Petition No.25054/2018 before the XIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall unit, Bengaluru. Hence, this petition.
4. Shri P. Prasanna Kumar, learned advocate for the petitioners, submitted that petitioners being employees working with the Bangalore Electricity Supply Company (for short, ‘BESCOM’), established by the State Government, fall under the definition of ‘Public servant’ under Section 21 of the IPC. Therefore, the prosecution launched against the petitioners without sanction by the competent authority required under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., is bad in law. He further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the revision petition on the ground that the petitioners had orally urged before the learned Sessions Judge that sanction was not obtained to prosecute the petitioners. He submitted that the sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., is a question of law and as a matter of fact, it was urged before the learned Sessions Judge although orally. Accordingly, he prayed for allowing this petition.
5. Smt. K.P. Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader on instructions, submits that sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., has not been obtained from the competent authority.
6. I have carefully considered the rival submissions made by the learned advocate for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for the State and perused the records.
7. Petitioners are Engineers working with the State owned Company. Therefore, they fall under the definition of ‘public servant’ under Section 21 of the IPC. Hence, sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., is necessary. It is conceded by the prosecution that sanction to prosecute the petitioners has not been obtained from the competent authority.
8. Learned Sessions Judge has recorded in para No.13 in his order that oral submission was made by learned counsel for petitioners without any pleading in the petition and accordingly, rejected the petition.
9. Though Shri P. Prasanna Kumar, learned advocate for the petitioners, fairly submitted that the petitioners ought to have filed proper pleading before the revisional authority, adverting to paragraph Nos.16 and 17 of this petition filed before this Court, he urged that this Court may consider the pleadings contained in this petition as the issue involved goes to the root of the matter and is a question of law.
10. On behalf of the prosecution, it is conceded that the sanction to prosecute the petitioners has not been obtained from the competent authority. Hence, the proceedings against the petitioners are unsustainable in law. Accordingly, I pass the following :
ORDER i. Petition is allowed.
ii. Proceedings from the stage of taking cognizance by the learned Magistrate on 03.12.2016 in C.C No.58019/2016 and all subsequent orders are set aside.
iii. Liberty is reserved to respondent No.1 - State to continue the prosecution against the petitioners after obtaining sanction from the competent authority.
iv. In view of disposal of this petition, I.A. No.1/2018 does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE sma