The Corporation was under obligation to engage security guards registered with respondent number1 only.
P.C. A criminal companyplaint case number14/S/2003 was filed by Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR respondent number1 before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Date 2019.08.19 142704 IST Reason Magistrate under clauses 26 2 3 and 39 read with clause 27 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 High Court erred in distinguishing Dr. Lakshmansingh Himatsingh Vaghela vs. Naresh Kumar Chandrashanker Jah and another, 1990 4 SCC 169, companysidering that the appellants number.2 to 4 were removable by orders of the President of India only.
The appellants prayed for recall of the process, which was rejected on 06.04.2004.
The Court referred to Section 197 CrPC, numbered the submissions and eventually held that the protection by way of sanction under Section 197 CrPC is number applicable to the officers of government companypanies or the public undertakings even when such public undertakings are State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution on account of deep and pervasive companytrol of the Government.
P.C. before their prosecution.
The Magistrate issued process against the appellants in 2003.
The revision application was again dismissed on 05.09.2007 leading to the impugned order assailed in the present appeal.
P.C. was number available to officers of Government companypanies or public undertakings even if it fell within the definition of State under Article 12 of the Constitution.
Appellants number.2 to 4, belonged to the Central Civil Service ClassI, having been appointed by Honble the President of India to the Indian Telecommunication Service, were removable by orders of the President only.
The High Court relying on Mohd.
The challenge in the writ petition is companyfined to the question of sanction only.
The appellants number.2 to 4 were sent on deputation initially.
A criminal revision preferred against the rejection was allowed on 07.09.2004.
The writ petition preferred by the appellants against the issuance of process was also rejected on 22.12.2006.
P.C., appellants number.2 to 4 being public servants.
An inspection revealed engagement of unregistered guards.
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 matter was remanded for reconsideration, which was again rejected by the Magistrate on 07.06.2005.
The fresh revision against order dated 07.06.2005 assailed the prosecution on grounds of being barred by limitation, that the Act was number applicable to the appellants establishment, and that the issuance of process was bad in absence of sanction under Section 197, Cr.
P.C. on the ground of being a public servant is number available to appellants number.3 and 4 on account of their ceasing to be employees of the Indian Telecommunication Service after their absorption in the appellant Corporation on 01.10.2000, prior to the companyplaint.
Option was given for absorption in the appellant Corporation.
The allegations related to discharge of his duties in the appellant Corporation.
Appellants number.3 and 4 opted for absorption and thus became employees of the appellant Corporation with effect from 01.10.2000 and ceased to be government employees in the Central Civil Services Class Appellant number2 appears to have retired from the appellant Corporation while on deputation, but his status is number clear.
NAVIN SINHA, J. The appellants are aggrieved by the dismissal of their writ application, rejecting the challenge to their prosecution for lack of sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 hereinafter called as Cr.
The fact that they may have been sent on deputation to the appellant Corporation is inconsequential mandating sanction under Section 197, Cr.
The companyplaint stated that the appellant Corporation was registered with the respondent Security Guards Board.
