BSNL Officials Denied Protection Under Section 197 CrPC: Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated August 19, 2019, ruled that officials of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) are not entitled to protection under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The case involved BSNL and its officials challenging the requirement of prosecution sanction, arguing that they were public servants.

The appellants, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) and its officials, had filed a writ petition against their prosecution in a criminal complaint filed under the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981. The complaint alleged that BSNL had employed unregistered security guards in violation of the Act. The appellants challenged the issuance of process, arguing that the prosecution required prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC.

Key Issues Before the Court

• Whether BSNL officials were entitled to protection under Section 197 CrPC.
• Whether officials working in public sector undertakings (PSUs) could be considered public servants under the Indian Penal Code.
• Whether the requirement of sanction was applicable in the case.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The appellants argued that since BSNL officials were appointed by the President of India and were part of the Central Civil Service, they should be treated as public servants. The senior counsel for BSNL contended:

“Appellants Nos. 2 to 4 fell within the definition of ‘public servant’ as they were discharging public duty in pursuance of the policy of the Central Government.”

They relied on their past service in the Indian Telecommunication Service, arguing that their removal could only be approved by the President. The appellants also cited previous Supreme Court judgments where sanction was held necessary for prosecution of public servants.

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondents, on the other hand, opposed the claim, stating that BSNL was a government-owned corporation and its officials were not entitled to the same protection as government employees. They argued:

“Appellants Nos. 3 and 4 opted for absorption in the appellant Corporation, thereby ceasing to be government employees in the Central Civil Services.”

The respondents highlighted that BSNL was created as a separate entity, and its employees were not directly under the control of the government.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

The Supreme Court relied on past precedents, including Mohd. Hadi Raja vs. State of Bihar (1998) and N.K. Sharma vs. Abhimanyu (2005), which held that officers of government-owned corporations do not qualify for protection under Section 197 CrPC. The Court observed:

“The protection by way of sanction under Section 197 CrPC is not applicable to the officers of government companies 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 control of the Government.”

The judgment further cited the case of Punjab State Warehousing Corporation vs. Bhushan Chander (2016), reiterating that PSU employees do not enjoy immunity from prosecution under Section 197 CrPC.

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court ruled that the appellants were not entitled to protection under Section 197 CrPC. The Court observed:

“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.”

The Court directed the Magistrate to conclude the trial within a year and dismissed the appeal.

Petitioner Name: Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Others.
Respondent Name: Pramod V. Sawant and Another.
Judgment By: Justice Navin Sinha, Justice A.S. Bopanna.
Place Of Incident: Maharashtra.
Judgment Date: 19-08-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Bharat Sanchar Nigam vs Pramod V. Sawant and Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 19-08-2019.pdf