आप इस लेख को हिंदी और मराठी में पढ़ सकते हैं ऊपर select language पर क्लिक करें
 |
| Public Servants in India |
Contents
1. A Public Servant: Who Is
He?
2. Offenses Against Public
Servants
3. Disobeying the law as a
public servant with the intent to injure anyone
4. a public servant disobeying orders under law
5. Punishment for failing to
treat the victim
6. With the intent to cause
harm, a public servant framed an incorrect document.
7. Unlawful trading by public
employees
8. Public employees buying or
bidding on property illegally
9. Taking on the role of a
public servant
10. Wearing disguises or
carrying tokens used by public servants with malicious intent
11. Cases of Historical Importance
Concerning Public Servants
12. Conclusion
1. A Public Servant: Who Is He?
Section 21 of the IPC defines
public servants as follows:
• Any Armed Forces
Commissioned Officer.
• Any judge who is authorized
to perform adjudicatory functions, either individually or through a body of
members.
• The officers of the court
are responsible for investigating and reporting on legal issues, authenticating
information or providing relevant details, and performing any other duties that
the court delegates to its officials.
• All jury members, panchayat
members, and evaluators who assist the court of justice.
• Any arbitrator to whom a
court of law refers a case for decision.
• Those with the authority to
confine people.
• Officers who are in charge
of preventing crimes, providing information about crimes, and bringing
criminals to justice.
• Officers in charge of the
government own property as part of their duties to conduct surveys,
assessments, or investigations and report on the government's financial interests.
• Officer tasked with
holding, taking, or distributing property for the public good in order to
assess or levy taxes.
• The officer is in charge of
updating the electoral rolls and conducting elections.
• Any person assigned a
government task in exchange for payment, performing a public duty, or appointed
to the service of authorities established by government acts.
In this way, public servants
must be protected in the interests of the country. Certain offenses against
public servants are punishable under the IPC's Public Servants Protection Code.
The Code of Procedure includes a section that addresses the offenses committed
by these public servants in their official capacity. On the other hand, incidents
occur in which public servants commit crimes against citizens and the country,
which are also punishable under the IPC. The guardians of justice are the
public authorities and the judiciary, who are presumed to be impartial while
following the procedures established by law. As a result, both sides have been
assured that they are pure and protected, allowing the country to progress in
an exemplary manner.
2.Offenses Against Public Servants
The Indian Penal Code,
Chapter-IX, deals with offenses committed by or in connection with public
servants. This chapter is divided into six sections, numbered 166 through 171.
This chapter addresses two
types of offenses, one of which may be committed solely by public servants and
the other of which includes offenses that, while not committed by public
servants, affect public servants. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,
deletes Sections 161 to 165A from the Code and replaces them with a harsher
penalty.
3.Disobeying the law as a public servant with the intent to injure anyone
The offense of "public
servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any person" is
defined in Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the provision, if
a public servant knowingly disobeys any lawful direction with the intent to
cause harm to any person, he or she may be punished with imprisonment for a
term of up to one year, a fine, or both.
The following elements must
be present for this offense to be established:
• The accused must be a
government employee.
• The accused must have
disobeyed a legal directive.
• The disobedience had to be
deliberate.
• The intent must have been
to cause harm to anyone.
It is important to note that
the offence is committed when a public servant deliberately disregards a legal
directive with the intent to harm someone. The provision is intended to ensure
that public servants carry out their responsibilities in accordance with the
law and do not abuse their power or position to harm others.
If a person is convicted of
"public servant disobeying the law, with intent to cause injury to any
person," they may face imprisonment for up to one year, a fine, or both.
The punishment will be determined by the facts and circumstances of each case,
as well as the court's discretion.
The essence of the offence
under Section 166 is intentional disobedience of an express direction of law by
a public servant with the intent to cause injury to any person. This section
considers breaching some statutory duty in order to cause harm to any
individual. This section cannot be classified as a simple violation of
departmental rules or regulations that do not have the force of law.
4. a public servant disobeying orders under law
Section 166A of the Indian
Penal Code defines "public servant disobeying direction under law" as
an offense. According to the provision, if a public servant disobeys any lawful
direction with the intent of causing harm to another person, or with knowledge
that harm will likely result from his or her disobedience, he or she may be
punished with imprisonment for a term of up to two years, a fine, or both.
The following elements must
be present for this offense to be established:
1.The accused must be a
government employee.
2.The accused must have
disobeyed a legal directive.
3.The disobedience had to be
deliberate.
4.The intent must have been
to cause harm to anyone, or the accused must have known that harm would befall
them as a result of their disobedience.
It's important to note that
the offence is committed when a public servant deliberately disobeys a legal
directive with the intent to cause harm to someone, or with knowledge that harm
will almost certainly result from their disobedience.
5.Punishment for failing to treat the victim
According to the law, "Whoever, being in charge of a hospital, public or private, whether run by the Central Government, the State Government, local bodies or any other person, contravenes the provisions of section 357C of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both.]"
6.With the intent to cause harm, a public servant framed an incorrect document.
Section 167 addresses
improper framing or translation of a frame. The preparation or translation of a
document or electronic record is within the scope of his official duty if he
was aware of it and did it with the intent or knowledge that it was likely to
cause injury to any person.
7.Unlawful trading by public employees
Section 168 penalizes public
employees who are legally prohibited from engaging in commercial activities. If
public servants were allowed to engage in trade, they would be unable to devote
their full attention to their formal work. Furthermore, they may take unfair
advantage of their official position over other traders to advance their
business. In its broadest sense, trade includes any type of trade, business,
profession, occupation, calling, or industry. There is also a skill involved in
preparing plans and estimates. Section 169 is an extension of Section 168. It
forbids a public servant from purchasing or bidding on property that he is
legally prohibited from purchasing.
8.Public employees buying or bidding on property illegally
The crime of "public servant unlawfully buying or bidding for property" is defined in Section 169 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the provision, if a public servant is found to be illegally buying or bidding for any property that has been put up for sale in execution of a court decree, satisfaction of a mortgage, or otherwise, he or she may be punished with imprisonment for a term of up to two years, a fine, or both.
The following elements must
be present for this offense to be established:
1.The accused must be a
government employee.
2.The accused must have
purchased or bid on the property illegally.
3.The property must have been
listed for sale in order to satisfy a court order, a mortgage, or otherwise.
9.Taking on the role of a public servant
Section 170 is made up of two
parts:
1) Someone who
(a) claims to hold a specific
office as a public servant but knows he does not, or
(b) Falsifies the identity of
any other person holding that office.
2) A person of such presumed
nature shall perform or attempt to perform an act in the capacity of such an
office.
Pretending to hold an office:
It is not an offense to simply pretend to hold an office; however, it is an
offense to do or attempt to do something under the guise of the office that he
pretends to hold. It is critical that the accused was aware that he did not
hold the office he claimed to hold.
Any Act:- In his assumed
character 'under the color of his office,' the offender must be shown to have
attempted to do or have done some act. It is immaterial to ask whether or not
the offender profited from his activities while posing as a public servant.
It is punishable under
section 171 simply to wear a garb or carry any token similar to any garb or
token used by that class of public servants with the intent of impersonating
such a public servant. If it is garb, the accused must wear it rather than just
carry it, and if it is a token, he must display it rather than just keep it in
his pocket. There is no need for any act to be performed or attempted in the
alleged garb.
Malicious Prosecution:-
Malicious prosecution of
public servants is a common occurrence in the circumstances of these
officials' failure to comply with individual demands. The refusal of these
officials to bias individuals based on social, economic, or political status
necessitates the filing of false charges in order to threaten them with
participation in practices that are contrary to the majority population.
Malicious prosecution is the
deliberate filing of false charges against someone in order to dishonor them
and subject them to court proceedings for a crime they did not commit. The
procedure established by law with malice in mind is an inappropriate use of
judicial machinery for personal vengeance and abuse.
While ruling on a number of
issues pertaining to the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Supreme Court ruled
that a public servant could not claim the protection of punishment from
prosecution. It was observed that protection in corruption cases has become a
matter of postponed prosecution. The fine line between a maliciously framed
honest public servant and a corrupt official sanctioned protection under the
section was drawn in this case.
It is up to the facts of the
case and the evidence available to determine the extent of the protection
afforded to these officials while performing official duties. The issue of
punishment may be raised at any time during the proceedings, and the
applicability of the sanctions must be determined from stage to stage.
10.Wearing disguises or carrying tokens used by public servants with malicious intent
The crime of "wearing
garb or carrying token used by public servant with fraudulent intent" is
defined in Section 170 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). According to the
provision, if a person is found wearing or carrying any garb or token used by a
public servant with the intent of giving the impression that he or she is a
public servant, he or she may be punished with imprisonment for a term of up to
three years, a fine, or both.
The following elements must
be present for this offense to be established:
1.The accused must have been
dressed in public servant garb or carrying a token used by a public servant.
2.The accused must have
intended to give the impression that he or she is a public servant.
11.Landmark Cases Concerning Public Servants
1) In K. Satwant Singh v. State
of Punjab (1959), the Supreme Court held that the scope of section 197 of
the 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure should be observed in the presence of
certain offences that, by definition, cannot be identified as being committed
by public servants in the course of their official duties.
An offence of accepting a
bribe is one where it cannot be said with certainty that the offence was
committed, similar to the offence of cheating or abetment under section 161 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Cheating or encouraging cheating should not be linked
to any public servant's official duty unless there is a link between the
offence committed and the discharge of duties. Only within the purview of
Section 197 is the offense committed while performing duties.
2) In the case of Matajog Dobey
v. H.C. Bhari (1955), was a case in which the appellant claimed that an
Income Tax Department official forcibly broke into his home and searched all of
his drawers while conducting an investigation or research. The magistrate
issued a prima facie case proceeding after the appellant claimed that the
officials were tied up and beaten.
The court stated that public
servants must be protected from harassment when prosecuted for an offense while
performing official duties, whereas ordinary citizens do not require such protection.
It was also decided that there must be a reasonable link between the discharge
of duty and the act for which he is charged in order for there to be no
pretentious claims.
3) The Supreme Court noted in
Baijnath And Ors v. State of MP (2016) that under section 197(1) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973, all offences committed by public servants do not
require penalties for prosecution. Any act committed while performing official
duties and that could be attributed to the office would regard punishment as a
necessary component.
The quality of the act is
extended to the officials mentioned in the section, provided that the
protection falls within the scope of official duties. The section's protection
does not apply if the nature of the offense is unrelated or unrelated to the
public servant's official duties.
4) InR.S. In the case of Nayak
v. A.R. In Antulay (1984), the Apex Court held that, in the case of a
penalty clause under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, only
the competent authority had the right to remove public servants in cases of
misuse or misrepresentation of office, because they had the necessary idea of
how and to what extent public servants abused the office. The authority
responsible for issuing punishment must take the evidence and facts of the case
before taking any uniformed action.
To disregard these officials,
sanction protects public servants from mistreatment at the hands of malicious
and malign prosecution and thus necessitates strict adherence to the provisions
of the authorities concerned for the imposition of penalties. It is recommended
that competent authorities be given the authority to enforce the sanction
clause. The authorities have the ability to analyze evidence and facts related
to the case that will be presented to a judge in order to clarify the honesty
of the prosecution's claims.
5) The Supreme Court held in
R.R.Chari v. State of UP(1951) that the first part of the section deals with
non-removable public officials serving under an offence while performing
official duties, and that no court is aware of any criminal cases committed by
such public servants. It was noted that the authorities must be satisfied with
the prima facie case for the prosecution before the actual prosecution begins. Section
197(1)'s primary function is to protect public servants from false prosecution.
In the case of Dr.
Subramanian Swamy v. Dr. Manmohan Singh and others. (2012)[10] The Supreme
Court ruled that threats of malicious prosecution should be avoided in legally
permissible ways in order for public servants to carry out their official
duties fairly and without bias. The possibility of corruption in public
offices, which compelled the court to include public interest provisions, was
not ruled out.
Article 14 of the Indian
Constitution, which guarantees all citizens the right to equality, is violated
by the special treatment of those public servants, but it serves as an
exception to that provision as a means of discriminatory protection. The
procedural provisions must be drafted in such a way that honesty and justice,
as well as good governance against aggravated corruption, are advanced.
In the case of Dhannjay Ram Sharma v. M.S. "The Honorable Supreme Court observed that, before the protection of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be claimed by an accused person who, in the first instance, has to satisfy the Court that he is a public servant" not removable from his office except by or with the sanction of a government of the State or of the Central government "and, in the second instance, that the acts complained of are" not removable from his office except by or with the sanction of a government of the State or of the Central government
12.Conclusion
In India, public servants ensure that all aspects of the government run smoothly. They are responsible for a variety of procedures that aid in the investigation and court proceedings. Public officials and the judiciary are presumed to be impartial while carrying out the procedures prescribed by law. Contempt of their lawful authority leads to disorder and chaos in the process. Contempt of the lawful authority of public servants must be avoided for the smooth operation of various parts of the judicial process.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा