The Supreme Court has held that employees of government-controlled corporations cannot automatically claim protection under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) merely because they are treated as public servants. The Court set aside the Rajasthan High Court's orders discharging three Jodhpur Discom employees from electricity theft-related charges and sent their criminal revision petitions back for fresh consideration on merits.
Background
The appeals arose from FIR No. 420/2012 registered at the Electricity Theft Prevention Police Station, Jodhpur Rural, following allegations that Balim Steel Pvt. Ltd. had committed electricity theft by tampering with its electricity meter, allegedly with the assistance of certain Jodhpur Discom employees.
The complaint alleged that the company had obtained an unlawful financial benefit of ₹12.99 crore, of which ₹8.15 crore remained unpaid. The Special Court had taken cognizance and framed charges against the employees under Sections 135–138 and 150 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
However, the Rajasthan High Court discharged Lalit Soni, Nema Ram and Vikash Jhanjadiya, holding that prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC had not been obtained.
A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar examined whether employees of a government instrumentality could claim Section 197 CrPC protection simply because they were public servants under the Electricity Act.
Referring to Mohd. Hadi Raja v. State of Bihar, the Court reiterated that employees of government companies and public undertakings do not automatically receive this protection.
The Court observed:
"Thus, it is fairly well settled that an employee of a Government instrumentality, does not ipso facto becomes a Government servant so as to be entitled for protection under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. merely because an employee is a public servant."
The Bench held that the High Court had incorrectly extended Section 197 protection to the three employees without considering the settled legal position.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's orders concerning Lalit Soni, Nema Ram and Vikash Jhanjadiya. It remitted their criminal revision petitions to the High Court for fresh consideration of whether the material in the charge sheet justified taking cognizance and framing charges.
However, the appeal concerning Sur Singh, who was working as a helper, was dismissed because the charge sheet contained no material establishing the basic ingredients of the alleged offence against him.
The appeals were accordingly partly allowed and partly dismissed.
