9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to protection under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Applicability of Haryana Civil Services (Punishment or Appeal) Rules, 1987. 3. Applicability of Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984. 4. Definition of 'public servant' under Section 21 of IPC. 5. Reasonable connection between the act and the discharge of official duty. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Entitlement to Protection under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: The primary question was whether a Class I Officer of the State Government deputed as Managing Director of a Cooperative Society is entitled to protection under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court held that the Appellant was not entitled to such protection. Section 197 Cr.PC protects public servants from frivolous prosecutions, but the Appellant did not qualify as a 'public servant' under Section 21 of IPC since his salary was not paid by the government, and he was not in the service of the State at the relevant time. 2. Applicability of Haryana Civil Services (Punishment or Appeal) Rules, 1987: The court examined whether the Appellant could be considered a 'public servant' under the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment or Appeal) Rules, 1987. Rule 2(D) defines a government employee and includes those whose services are placed at the disposal of a company or organization. However, the court concluded that this definition could not be extended to afford protection under Section 197 Cr.PC, as the rules were meant for specific purposes related to the state's civil services. 3. Applicability of Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984: The Appellant also relied on Sections 118 and 123 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984. Section 123 deems certain employees engaged in loan recovery or appointed as liquidators or arbitrators as 'public servants'. The court noted that the Appellant, as Managing Director, did not fall under these categories. The legal fiction created by Section 123 was limited to specific roles and could not be extended to the Appellant's position. 4. Definition of 'Public Servant' under Section 21 of IPC: The court reiterated that the definition of 'public servant' under Section 21 of IPC includes individuals in the service or pay of the government or local authorities. The Appellant did not meet this criterion as his salary was not paid by the government, and he was not in government service at the time. The court referenced previous judgments, including S.S. Dhanoa vs. Municipal Corporation, Delhi, and Mohd. Hadi Raja vs. State of Bihar, to support its conclusion. 5. Reasonable Connection between the Act and the Discharge of Official Duty: The court emphasized the need for a reasonable connection between the act and the discharge of official duty to invoke protection under Section 197 Cr.PC. The allegations against the Appellant did not demonstrate such a connection. The court also noted that the Appellant's application under Section 203 Cr.PC was not maintainable, referencing Adalat Prasad vs. Rooplal Jindal and Others, which stated that the Criminal Procedure Code does not contemplate a review of an order. The court dismissed the appeal, allowing the Appellant to raise other contentions in appropriate proceedings.
|
