Patna: The Patna High Court has ruled that criminal prosecution cannot be initiated against a government official for alleged offences connected with the discharge of official duties without obtaining the prior sanction required under the law.
A single-judge bench of Justice Rana Vikram Singh quashed the cognizance order issued against Harendra Nath Dubey, the then district manager of the Bihar State Food Corporation (BSFC), in a case involving allegations of forcibly entering a rice mill, removing stored rice and assaulting individuals.
The court observed that the allegations against Dubey were connected with his official responsibilities and that the complaint did not clearly establish any personal criminal role on his part.
Dispute dates back to 2013
The case arose from a dispute involving Kumar Rice Mill in Gaya district.
According to the case details, the mill owner, Dhirendra Kumar Singh, was accused of failing to return the stipulated quantity of rice under an agreement with the Bihar State Food Corporation.
Following the alleged failure, the corporation lodged an FIR at Amas Police Station in 2013.
Subsequently, the mill owner’s brother, Deepak Kumar Singh, filed a complaint alleging that Dubey and other accused persons entered the mill premises on December 9, 2013, broke the locks, removed rice and engaged in assault and mistreatment.
Acting on the complaint, the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate of Sherghati took cognizance of the allegations under various sections of the Indian Penal Code on December 20, 2015, and directed the accused to appear before the court.
Official was part of government-authorised team
During its examination of the case, the High Court found that Dubey was part of a government team constituted on the instructions of a competent authority.
The team had been assigned to verify, prepare an inventory of and seize paddy and rice stored at the mill premises.
The court also considered the findings of an administrative inquiry conducted into the allegations against the officials. The inquiry had not substantiated the accusations.
The High Court observed that the acts attributed to Dubey were linked to the performance of his official functions rather than any clearly alleged independent criminal conduct.
Prior sanction required for prosecution
The court emphasised the legal protection available to public servants against prosecution for alleged offences connected with the discharge of their official duties.
It held that where the alleged conduct falls within the scope of official responsibilities, the statutory requirement of prior sanction must be satisfied before criminal proceedings can be initiated.
In Dubey’s case, the court found that the allegations arose from actions undertaken as part of an officially authorised exercise involving the verification and seizure of agricultural produce.
On these grounds, the High Court quashed the magistrate’s December 20, 2015, cognizance order against Dubey.
The ruling underscores the requirement to distinguish between alleged criminal conduct undertaken independently and actions connected with the discharge of official duties when considering prosecution of public servants.
