Case at a Glance
Four employees of Jodhpur Discoms — an executive engineer, an assistant engineer, a junior engineer and a helper — were charged with abetting meter tampering by an industrial consumer said to have gained about ₹13 crore. The Rajasthan High Court discharged the three engineers because no sanction had been obtained under Section 197 CrPC. The Supreme Court held that although they are ‘public servants’ under Section 169 of the Electricity Act, they are neither appointed nor removable by the State Government, so Section 197 does not protect them. It sent their revision petitions back for decision on merits, but left intact the discharge of the helper.
A vigilance inspection on 10 July 2012 led to an FIR at the anti-power-theft police station in Jodhpur under Sections 135 to 138 and 150(1) and (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The consumer, an industrial company, was alleged to have tampered with its meter, gaining ₹12,99,64,800, of which ₹8,15,08,737 remained unpaid. Discom employees were accused of abetting the theft. The Special Court for Electricity Act cases took cognizance and framed charges by orders dated 5 February 2013 and 18 July 2014.
In revision, the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur, by a common judgment dated 2 April 2025, set aside cognizance against executive engineer Lalit Soni, assistant engineer Nema Ram and junior engineer Vikash Jhanjadiya for want of sanction under Section 197 CrPC, and quashed the charges against a helper, Sur Singh, on merits. It dismissed the revisions of several other employees. The Discom appealed.
The Key Question Before the Court
Are employees of a government company such as an electricity distribution company entitled to the protection of prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC merely because the Electricity Act deems them public servants?
Public Servant Is Not the Same as Government Servant
The Court accepted that the three engineers are public servants by virtue of Section 169 of the Electricity Act, 2003, but held that this does not alter the fact that they are neither appointed by nor removable by the State Government — the condition for the Section 197 shield. Relying on Mohd. Hadi Raja v. State of Bihar, (1998) 04 SC CK 0101, which held that officers of government companies and public undertakings, even those that are ‘State’ under Article 12, are not protected by Section 197, and on Punjab State Warehousing Corporation v. Bhushan Chander, (2016) 06 SC CK 0007, which affirmed it, the Court said an employee of a government instrumentality does not automatically become a government servant entitled to that protection simply because he is a public servant.
The High Court’s reasoning extending Section 197 to the three respondents was therefore flawed and contrary to settled precedent. Since the High Court had not examined whether the material in the charge-sheet justified cognizance and framing of charges against them, the Court remitted that question. As for the helper, the High Court had quashed the charges on merits, finding no material forming the basic ingredients of the offence against him, and the Supreme Court left that finding undisturbed. Other grounds on maintainability were left open.
What the Court Actually Held
- Employees of a government company are not entitled to Section 197 CrPC protection merely because they are public servants under Section 169 of the Electricity Act; the test is appointment and removability by the Government.
- The High Court’s discharge of the three engineers for want of sanction was set aside and their revision petitions were restored for decision on merits.
- The High Court must decide whether the trial court was justified in taking cognizance and framing charges against them.
- The appeal against the helper was dismissed, so the quashing of charges against him stands.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It affects prosecutions of employees of discoms and other public sector undertakings across the country, where the sanction defence is routinely raised.
- It reaffirms the distinction between ‘public servant’ under special statutes and the narrower class protected by Section 197.
- It revives the prosecution in a large power-theft case pending since 2012.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For PSU Employees
- Being a deemed ‘public servant’ under the Electricity Act does not by itself require sanction under Section 197 CrPC.
- Merits-based challenges to cognizance and charges remain available, as the remand shows.
- Other maintainability grounds were expressly left open.
For Counsel
- Cite Mohd. Hadi Raja and Punjab State Warehousing Corporation v. Bhushan Chander on Section 197 and government-company employees.
- Check who has the power to appoint and remove the accused; that is decisive under Section 197.
- Where a discharge rests only on sanction, argue the merits separately in case the sanction ground fails.
Key Takeaways
- No Section 197 CrPC shield for employees of government companies who are not removable by the Government.
- ‘Public servant’ under Section 169 Electricity Act is not enough.
- Three engineers’ revisions sent back to the High Court on merits.
- Helper’s discharge on merits upheld.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does Section 197 CrPC protect?
It requires prior sanction to prosecute a public servant who is not removable from office save by or with the sanction of the Government, for acts done in the discharge of official duty.
Are discom employees public servants?
Yes, under Section 169 of the Electricity Act, 2003, as the Court accepted. But that does not make them persons removable only by the Government, so Section 197 does not apply.
Are the engineers now convicted?
No. The Court only set aside their discharge on the sanction ground and sent the revisions back to the High Court to decide whether cognizance and charges were justified on the material.
Conclusion
The order closes a commonly used escape route in prosecutions of public sector staff. Whether the engineers actually abetted the theft is still to be tested, but the absence of sanction will not end the case.
Practical takeaway: Employees of government companies and public undertakings should not expect Section 197 CrPC to bar their prosecution; challenges must be made on the material in the charge-sheet.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com