MOHD. HADI RAJA ETC. versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.

Citation: [1998] 3 S.C.R. 22 · Decided: 28-04-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.N. RAY · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MOHD. HAD! RAJA ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR. 
APRIL 28, 1998 
B 
(G.N. RAY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 
Sections 197 and 2(y)-''Public servant''-Judge, magistrate and public 
C servant not to be prosecuted or removed from their office for any offence 
alleged to have been committed in discharge of his official duties-Whether 
sanction is required to be taken for prosecution officers of public undertakings 
or government companies even if such companies fall within the definition 
of State under Article l 2-Held, no-These instrumentalities or agencies of 
D the State, even though perform some of the functions of the State , have their 
own separate entity and cannot be equated with departments directly run by 
the Government-Therefore, action taken by them, however important the 
same may be in the interest of State, can be held to be an action taken by 
or on behalf of the Government and as such within the meaning of Section 
197-Constitution of India Article 12. 
E 
F 
G 
Section 197-Which of the acts can be alleged to have been committed 
by a public servant acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official 
duties-Held, alleged action constituting the offence alleged to have been 
committed by the public servant must have a reasonable and rational nexus 
with the official duties required to be discharged by such r:ublic servant. 
Words and Phrases-"Public servant "-Meaning of-Jn the context of 
Section 2(y) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 
Interpretation of Statutes-Liberal construction-Permissible limit a/-
Such construction should not amount to legislation by court. 
The question that arose in this appeal was whether the provisions of 
sanction under Section 197 CrPC that would be applicable for prosecuting 
officers of the public sector undertakings or the Government Companies 
when on account of deep and pervasive control of finance and administration 
of such undertakings and the government companies were held to be State 
H within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. 
22 
MOHD. HAD! RAJA v. ST ATE OF BIHAR 
23 
It was contended by the appellants that if the public undertakings or A 
the government companies which conformed to various tests of deep and 
pervasive control of the government over such public undertakings or the 
government companies and thus the officers of such corporations must be 
held to be a public servant for all intents and purposes and for applicability 
of Section 197 CrPC, the object of which was to guard against vexatious B 
proceedings against judges, magistrates and public servants and to secure 
the opinion if superior authority, and that since such public undertaking and 
government companies were third arm of the government, for the purpose of 
sanction under Section 197 CrPC, the officers of such public undertaking 
must be placed at par with the government servants because such officers 
in fact discharged the duties and functions of the State Government. 
C 
On the other hand respondents contended that even though some of the 
public undertakings and the government companies may be treated as 
instrumentalities or agencies of the State in view of deep and pervasive 
control of the government but it could not be held that such employee, were D 
employees in connection with the affairs of the Union or the State; and that 
a department directly run by the government had always been placed on a 
different footing and the employees of the government undertaking and 
government company even though they were instrumentalities or agencies 
of the State, had never been treated at par with government servants; and that 
sanction contemplated under Section 197 CrPC must be restricted only in E 
respect of a Judge or a Magistrate or a Public Servant who was directly 
employed by the government and not any instrumentality or agency of the 
government 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. The protection by way of sanction under Section 197 CrPC 
is not applicable to the officers of government companies or the public 
undertakings even when such public undertakings are "State" within the 
meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution on account of deep and pervasive 
F 
control of the Government. (37-A] 
G 
1.2. The justification for the protection under Section I 97 Cr PC lies 
in the public policy to ensure that official acts performed by a public servant 
do not lead to needless and vexatious prosecution of such public se

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.