B.S.N.L. vs Pramod V. Sawant

2. A criminal complaint case no.14/S/2003 was filed by Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR respondent no.1 before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Date: 2019.08.19 14:27:04 IST Reason: Magistrate under clauses 26(2)(3) and 39 read with clause 27 1 of the Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1981 read with Section 3(3) of Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981 (hereinafter called as “the Act”). The complaint stated that the appellant – Corporation was registered with the respondent ­ Security Guards Board. The Corporation was under obligation to engage security guards registered with respondent no.1 only. An inspection revealed engagement of unregistered guards. The Magistrate issued process against the appellants in 2003. The appellants prayed for recall of the process, which was rejected on 06.04.2004. A criminal revision preferred against the rejection was allowed on 07.09.2004. The matter was remanded for reconsideration, which was again rejected by the Magistrate on 07.06.2005. The writ petition preferred by the appellants against the issuance of process was also rejected on 22.12.2006. The fresh revision against order dated 07.06.2005 assailed the prosecution on grounds of being barred by limitation, that the Act was not applicable to the appellants’ establishment, and that the 2 issuance of process was bad in absence of sanction under Section 197, Cr.P.C., appellants nos.2 to 4 being ‘public servants’. The revision application was again dismissed on 05.09.2007 leading to the impugned order assailed in the present appeal. In the writ petition, the appellants gave up their challenge on grounds of limitation and inapplicability of the Act which has therefore attained finality. The challenge in the writ petition is confined to the question of sanction only.

12. We are of the opinion that sufficient evidence is not available on record at this stage with regard to the status of appellant no.2 in all aspects for us to unhesitatingly hold that the protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C shall be available to him. These are matters to be considered by the Magistrate on basis of the evidence that may be placed before him during the course of trial. 9

Hadi Raja has been referred to in the grounds in this appeal. There is nothing on record to suggest 10 that the said decision was cited before the High Court…”

15. It is therefore, held that the question of sanction under Section 197, Cr.P.C. with regard to appellants nos.3 and 4 treating them to be ‘public servant’ simply does not arise because of their absorption in the Corporation. With regard to appellant no.2, considering his status as on deputation to the appellant Corporation at the relevant point of time and in absence of necessary evidence with regard to his status in the appellant Corporation throughout the litigation being ambiguous, we leave that question open for consideration in the trial after necessary evidence is available.

16. The trial has turned out to be stillborn since 2003, with the appellants filing one application after another. We are of the considered opinion that the trial needs to be expedited and concluded at an early date. It is ordered accordingly. The Magistrate shall endeavour to conclude the trial within a period of one year. The parties are directed to cooperate for its early disposal. 12

17. The appeal is dismissed.