Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M.Padmanabham vs The State Of A.P., on 28 October, 2024
APHC010720092018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
[3365]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 353/2022
Between:
Sugan Chandra Gupta ...PETITIONER
AND
Shri M M K Murty and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. PARTY IN PERSON
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. CH B R P SEKHAR
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
2
Dr. VRKS, J
Crl.R.C.No.353 of 2022
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.353 of 2022
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and
401 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) impugns the order
dated 01.08.2018 of the learned VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Gajuwaka in DDR No.4299 of 2018. By the said
order the complaint filed by the revision petitioner was dismissed.
2. Various grounds are alleged in the revision and the revision
petitioner- Sri Sugan Chandra Gupta having been permitted as
per the rules appeared and argued in person. For respondents,
Sri Ch.B.R.P.Sekhar, the learned counsel appeared and
submitted arguments. There is on record counter affidavit filed on
behalf of the respondents and a reply counter affidavit filed by the
revision petitioner.
3. According to the revision petitioner, these respondents
committed offences under Sections 166,167, 192, 120A, 107 and
119 read with 34 and Section 44 I.P.C and the learned Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate ought to have summoned them and
Dr. VRKS, J
prosecuted them and its failure resulted in injustice. In such
circumstances, it is relevant to find out what is stated in the
complaint and for that purpose the complaint is extracted as
below:
"IN THE HONOURABLE COURT OF VIII ADDITIONAL
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT GAJUWAKA,
VISAKHAPATNAM.
BETWEEN
Sugan Chandra Gupta Complainant
And
1. Sri MMK Murty ED(MM-Retd), RINL, Visakhapatnam Steel
Plant.
2. 2.Sri NR Prasad, GM(MM), RINL, Visakhapatnam Steel
Plant.
Accused
COMPLAINT FILED UNDER SECTION 200 OF Cr.P.C. FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 166,
167, 192, 120A, 107 AND 119 READ WITH Sec 34 AND 44
OF IPC
I. The Complainant is:
Dr. VRKS, J
Shri Sugan Chandra Gupta, S/o Late Jagadish Prasad
Gupta, Hindu, Aged 58 yrs, Hindu residing at Dr.No.31-45-
7/2, Vudanagar Ph-2, Kurmanpalem, Visakhapatnam-530049
(AP) is an employee of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited,
(RINL), Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam 530031.
The address of the complainant for the purpose of
service of summons, notices etc is as stated above.
II The Accused are:
1. Shri MMK Murty Executive Director(MM) RINL, Retd. s/o
Not known to Complainant, Aged-61 years, Hindu, residing at
Fiat no 102, Sai Krishna Towers, Opposite HP Gas,
Muralinagar, Visakhapatnam (A. P) PIN-530007.
2. Shri N R Prasad, GM(MM-Stores, RINL), s/o Not known to
Complainant, Aged-57 years, Central Stores Department.
Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam (A.P.) PIN-
530031.
All the accused are major and the addresses of the accused
are for the purpose of service of notices and summons as
stated above.
1. The complainant submits that the accused Al and A2 are
'Public Servant' within the meaning of Section 21 of Indian
Penal Code 1860, during the relevant period of commission
of the offences. The complainant, also submits that the
accused being officers of a Government company, do not
require prior sanction for prosecution under Sec 197 of
Cr.P.C., and also as per Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment in
Dr. VRKS, J
Mohmd, Hadiraja vs State of Bihar delivered on 28th April
1998.
2. The complainant submits that Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd,
Visakhapatnam Steel Plant is a company incorporated under
Companies Act 1956 and is a Government Company within
the meaning of Sec 617 of Companies Act, 1956 and
therefore is 'State' under Art 12 of Constitution of India. The
accused A1 and A2 were responsible for the management of
Materials Management Department of the Visakhapatnam
Steel Plant during the relevant period.
3. The Complainant further submits the procedure and rules
of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant are law for the Complainant as
well as to the A1 and A2, under Art 13(3) of the Indian
Constitution. The Complainant submits that A1 and A2 are
under obligation to prevent commission of offences under
Sec 119 of IPC, instead of that, they themselves committed
the offences directly or by abetting(Sec 107 of IPC) causing
injury(Sec 44) to the complainant.
4. The Complainant most respectfully submits that A1 and
A2, who were/are responsible for the management of Central
Stores Department of RINL, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant,
caused injury (under Sec 44 of IPC) to the Complainant by
committing or abetting criminal acts under Sec 166,167,192
and 120A in furtherance of common intention, by conspiring
together (Sec 34,107, and 120A of IPC). The subject relates
to transfer order issued on 10th Oct 2015, by A-2 in the
Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. (Exhibit-1, Page- 8)
Dr. VRKS, J
5. The complainant submits that he has been working in the
executive capacity in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant from 5th
July, 1983 and is in the present position of Dy General
Manager (MM) from 30.06.2007. He was and is working in
the same position in the Central Stores Department and
reporting to A2, who in turn was reporting to A1, at the time
when offences were committed.
6. The organization has four levels of officers/executives i.e.,
Top level that includes Directors, Chairman-cum- Managing
Director, Sr Management level of E7 TO E9 that includes Dy
General Manager(E7) level to Executive Director(E9) level,
Middle Management (E5 and E6) level and Frontline
Management(JO E0, E1, E2, E3 and E4) level. Each level of
management is associated with certain types of function,
powers, prestige and responsibility. Sr Management level is
associated with the overall functional responsibility of an area
with secretarial assistance and several middle level officers
reporting to him. The transfer and assignment of functional
responsibility of the Sr Management level is the function of
Top Management and guided by Delegation of Powers issued
by the organization, which is the law (The relevant extract of
General powers relating to transfer of executives is at Exhibit
-2).
7. The complainant had a suspicion of violation of delegation
of powers and therefore made a complaint to Vigilance
Department of the PSU, but to utter disappointment of
Complainant no action was forthcoming and therefore he was
constrained to approach the authorities under RTI to furnish
the investigation and action taken report. It was not furnished
Dr. VRKS, J
under one pretext or other even by Appellate Authority.
Appeal to Central Information. Commission was filed and on
case being heard after almost an year CIC passed order for
providing the report on 15th Dec 2018. (Exhibit-3, Page 13).
The report, that was provided was also an incomplete one,
against which a communication is submitted, to which reply is
awaited. (Exhibit-4, Page-16 & 49). The report reveals the
mens rea of the accused, misrepresentation and false
statements of the accused.
8. The Complainant received the information/document on
his transfer through RTI(Exhibit 6 Page-41) and to his utter
surprise found that offences Under Sec 166, 167, 192, 120A,
107, 119 read with Sec 32 and 44 of IPC 1860 are committed
by the Accused.
9. The Complainant submits that A1, under law (Page 12) is
not empowered to transfer the individuals at E7 level and
illegally approved the transfer of the complainant, illegally
proposed by A2 knowing fully well the law on the subject, that
they do not have powers to effect the transfer and no
additional delegation for transfer was made by the company
as stated in the Vigilance report. (Exhibit-6, Page- 42). The
A1 has falsely certified that the transfer(Exhibit-1, Page-8)
has the approval of competent authority (Page 8). Thus A2
has fabricated the document at Exhibit-1, having fabricated
the evidence of approval by A1, also in connivance with Al
knowing fully well the law on the subject, being executives of
the organization for more than three decades.
Dr. VRKS, J
10. The complainant submits that in the process the accused
A1 and A2 injured the Complainant by transferring him
without authority and also affecting his reputation, positional
authority by assigning him no job, no subordinate not even a
secretarial assistance (Sec 44 of IPC).
11. The Accused were/are public servant and it was their
duty to prevent the commission of various offences stated in
the Petition. Even the concealment of design to commit such
an offense is punishable under law, as it is their duty to
prevent commission of such offence. The individual Accused
in the petition, who all were/are public servant at the time of
commission of offence and whose duty was to prevent
commission of such offence, instead of it, have committed the
offences themselves and therefore also attract punishment
under Section 119 of the Indian Penal Code.
12. The Petitioner affirms that the learned Magistrate's
jurisdiction is invoked for criminal acts carried out by the
Accused 1 and 2, and not for any civil relief. There is no
patent absurdities in the evidence produced by the
Complainant and they are obtained through legal process of
RTI.
13. The Complainant submits that the accused Al and A2 in
connivance with each other have prepared false documents,
violating the procedure relating to delegation which is the law,
with common mala fide intention of promoting their own
nefarious design. The Complainant therefore submits that
following offences under Indian Penal Code has taken place
or/and abetted.
Dr. VRKS, J
1. Public servant disobeying law with intent to cause injury,
i.e., non-following of delegation of powers (Sec 166 of IPC).
2. Public servant framing incorrect document i.e., the
transfer order of 10th Oct 2015 (Sec 167 of IPC).
3. Fabricating false evidence i.e., Fabricating the proposal
and the approval for transfer effected on 10th Oct 2015 (Sec
192 of IPC).
4. Criminal conspiracy to cause injury to complainant (Sec-
120A of IPC). The accused Al and A2 are fully aware of the
law. Knowing fully well the law they have connived together
to cause injury to the complainant by their acts of
commission, connivance and abetment (Sec 107 of IPC).
5. The accused A1 andA2 are/were public servant have
concealed design to commit offences which they are under
legal obligation to prevent (Sec 119 of IPC).
The offences took place at Visakhapatnam Steel Plant
which is within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.
It is therefore prayed, that the Hon'ble court may kindly
take cognizance of the offences, order police investigation
and punish the accused with utmost sentence according to
law.
COMPLAINANT, SUGAN CHANDRA GUPTA
Dr. VRKS, J
VERIFICATION
The above stated facts are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge, belief and information.
SUGAN CHANDRA GUPTA, COMPLAINANT
Dr. no 31-45-7/2 Vudanagar Ph-2, Kurmanpalem.
Visakhapatnam-530049, Mob 9949473560"
4. Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate recorded the sworn
statement of the complainant and considered the material on
record and stated that prima facie no case is made out from the
averments in the complaint and the sworn statement and the
documents filed along with the complaint as the matter involved
was with reference to transfer of the complainant and the dispute
raised is civil in nature and therefore criminal process could not
be granted. One of the aspects that fell for consideration before
the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was whether the
respondents were public servants and whether Section 197 of
Cr.P.C. requiring prior sanction for prosecution was required or
not. After noticing the definition of public servant in Section 21
I.P.C. and after noticing the precedent, it held that to take
cognizance under Sections 166 and 167 I.P.C. against public
servants sanction for prosecution under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was
Dr. VRKS, J
required. It held that the respondents were public servants. With
the aforesaid reasons, it dismissed the complaint in terms of
Section 203 Cr.P.C. stating that there are no sufficient grounds to
proceed further.
5. The point that falls for consideration is:
"Whether on facts it could be said that
respondents have committed a crime to be
prosecuted under any of the penal provisions of
the Indian Penal Code and whether the impugned
order of the trial Court is illegal or irregular
requiring interference?
POINT:
6. The essence of the allegations as seen from the averments
in the complaint and as seen from the grounds urged in the
revision is to the following effect:
There are Rules and Regulations governing transfer of
employees and officers in Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited,
Visakhapatnam Steel Plant which is a Government Company
incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. There are Rules
and set guidelines delegating powers to certain authorities to do
Dr. VRKS, J
certain acts. The respondents, in violation of powers delegated,
acted illegally and affected transfer of the revision petitioner and
put him in such inconvenient position where he was not allocated
requisite work and left him idle and left him without any secretarial
assistance which he was authorized and entitled by virtue of the
cadre he has been holding. In the light of those acts of the
respondents, the contention raised is that all those Rules and
Regulations governing transfers and delegation of powers are law
and the respondents with a view to injure the revision petitioner
violated those laws and therefore, they should be prosecuted and
punished. It is specifically mentioned in the complaint that the
revision petitioner is not seeking any civil relief, and he intends
criminal prosecution only. While the counter affidavit filed by the
respondents asserts that the orders dated 10.10.2015 issued by
respondent No.2 are not transfer orders and they relate only to
allocation of distribution of work in the material management
department. It further asserts that the revision petitioner was
neither reduced in rank nor demoted and in fact he has been
working in pursuance of the disputed orders and has been
drawing his salary and any grievance of him concerning his
service matter may have to be adjudicated before relevant
Dr. VRKS, J
superior authorities and take proceedings before Grievance Cell
and instead of doing that, the revision petitioner gave a colour of
criminal law and intends to initiate criminal process while no crime
was committed by record.
7. It has to be stated that on considering all the facts, the fact
that emerges on record is a dispute raised with reference to
transfer or allocation of work and violation of powers and a
delegatee exercising more power than what was delegated.
Though complaint is annexed with several documents, none of
them do indicate any penal consequences for violation of any of
those Rules and Regulations. Criminal law cannot be set in
motion unless the facts alleged prima facie indicate commission
of an offence. Wrongs are divided into private wrongs and public
wrongs. Private wrongs are an infringement of private or civil
rights belonging to individuals, considered as individuals, and are
thereupon frequently termed as civil injuries. A breach and
violation of public rights and duties which affect the whole
community considered as a community, and acts that are
deemed by law to be harmful to society in general, even though
its immediate victim is an individual are called as crimes. Those
Dr. VRKS, J
who commit such acts are proceeded against in order to punish
them.
8. The facts asserted in the case at hand are purely civil in
nature and they pertain to service irregularities or violation of
certain rules governing the services of officers working in the said
organization. Even if the respondents conspired and procured
orders harming the career of the revision petitioner, they cannot
be termed as crimes. Chapter IX of Indian Penal Code pertains
to offences by or relating to public services. Sections 166 and
167 I.P.C. are cited in the complaint. Section 166 I.P.C. is about
public servant disobeying law with intent to cause injury to any
person. Section 167 I.P.C. is about public servant framing an
incorrect document with intent to cause injury. Section 44 I.P.C.
states that "injury" denotes any harm whatever illegally caused to
any person, in body, mind, reputation or property. The grievance
of the revision petitioner is that he is injured by the orders passed
by the respondents. The only submission of the revision
petitioner is that law mentioned in Sections 166 and 167 I.P.C. is
the service rules of his organization and respondents intentionally
violated them to injure him. It is undisputed that he complied with
Dr. VRKS, J
those orders and has been serving in the position in which he
was placed and was discharging his duties and has been drawing
his salary. He does not want to pursue his civil remedies. He
wants the Court to see such acts on part of respondents within
the conspectus of Sections 166 and 167 I.P.C. All that
submission goes to show that what was done by respondents
was not to the desire of the revision petitioner. Be it noted that
the acts attributed against the respondents did not injure his body
or property. It is only the belief of the revision petitioner that
those orders are not befitting his cadre and therefore, injured his
reputation. The belief he holds is personal and the orders passed
need not meet his beliefs. At any rate, belief of the nature held by
the revision petitioner is not relevant for consideration since the
acts alleged by themselves have no nexus to be called as crimes.
The Service Rules and Regulations in the organization were to
govern the human resources and any violation in them do not
amount to a penal offence under the Indian Penal Code. In fact,
the Rules and Regulations relied on by the revision petitioner also
do not indicate any penal consequences to follow when there is a
violation.
Dr. VRKS, J
9. Chapter XI of Indian Penal Code is about false evidence
and offences against public justice. The revision petitioner
mentions Section 192 I.P.C. in his complaint. Section 192 I.P.C.
is about fabricating false evidence such as making false entry in
any book or any record or making any document intending that
such false statements or entries may appear in evidence in a
judicial proceeding, or in a proceeding taken by law before a
public servant. Be it noted that the entire contents of complaint
and the grounds urged in the revision do not indicate that any
such proceedings are prepared with a view that they could be
evidence in a judicial proceeding so as to attract the provision.
Coming to making a fabricated document which the complaint
alleges, the fact is that relevant proceedings were issued by
respondents and they were complied with by the revision
petitioner. There was no false entry or preparation of a false
document. What was alleged was that incompetent person
incorrectly passed such orders in violation of powers delegated to
them. The complaint mentions Section 120A I.P.C. which defines
what is criminal conspiracy. Complaint also mentions Section
107 I.P.C., which defines abetment of a thing. Complaint
mentions Section 119 I.P.C. which provides a public servant
Dr. VRKS, J
concealing design to commit offence which it is his duty to
prevent. Complaint further refers to Section 34 I.P.C. which says
about acts done by several persons in furtherance of common
intention. Thus, Sections 120A, 107, 119 and 34 I.P.C. would
come into operation only when the others substantive offences
are made out in a case. As stated above, even after considering
all the facts alleged by the revision petitioner are taken to be true,
they do not attract any of these penal provisions. Thus, the view
held by the trial Court that it found no prima facie case to initiate
criminal prosecution and that what was complained before the
Court was only civil in nature is right on facts and law and no
interference is needed at all.
10. The other contention of the revision petitioner which
questions the impugned order of the learned Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate is to whether respondents are public servants or not
and whether the sanction for prosecution was required or not.
They are immaterial for consideration since the complaint did not
indicate a crime so as to proceed further. Therefore, the order of
the trial Court in dismissing the complaint in terms of Section 203
of Cr.P.C. has to be upheld. There is no irregularity or illegality or
Dr. VRKS, J
impropriety in the said order requiring any interference by this
revisional jurisdiction. The revision is misplaced and shall be
dismissed. The point is answered against the revision petitioner.
11. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
________________________
Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J
Date: 28.10.2024
Ivd
Dr. VRKS, J
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.353 of 2022
Date: 28.10.2024
Ivd
