INTRODUCTION

The case of Mukesh Kumar, I.R.S v. G. Srinivas Reddy & Another deals with Section 166 of IPC. The court interpreted this section and decided what comes within the ambit of public service. The punishment for a public official who breaks the law while carrying out their duty with the intention of hurting someone is outlined in Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The penalty consists of a fine, simple imprisonment for a maximum of one year, or both. This provision is applicable when a public official intentionally violates a law that specifies how they must behave while carrying out their duties. When a public servant understands that their disobedience will probably result in someone getting hurt, this provision comes into play.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The first respondent/complainant filed a private complaint alleging that the petitioner had committed an offence under Section 166 IPC. He claimed to have given complaints to the petitioner/accused on June 29, 2010, June 21, and January 27, 2011, regarding income tax evasion and account falsification by the Advocates Mutually Aided Co-operative Society (Credit) Limit (also known as “the Society”), City Civil Court Premises, Hyderabad, among other things. Nevertheless, the accused has not investigated the aforementioned society even a full year and a half after the dates of the corresponding complaints. Therefore, on July 18, 2011, the first respondent/complainant sent a legal notice to the accused/petitioner asking him to provide an update on his complaints and, if he hasn’t taken any action against society, to provide justification for why he shouldn’t face legal action, specifically under Section 166 IPC for neglecting to perform his duties and responsibilities, which would constitute dereliction of duty, within seven days of receiving the notice. After receiving the legal notification on July 19, 2011, the petitioner/accused did not respond.

ISSUES RAISED

• The accused/petitioner is requesting the dismissal of the proceedings against him in C.C.No. 661 of 2011 in the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad at Nampally, in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Whether such dismissal of proceedings can be granted?
• Is it possible to take cognizance of the complaint in this matter based on the presumptive violation of Section 166 IPC against the petitioner?

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Arguments on behalf of the petitioner

• The complaint wrote letters dated June 29, 2009, and June 21, 2010, directly to the Director of Income Tax (Investigation) in Hyderabad rather than at the petitioner’s office, which is the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation). Regarding the letter dated January 27, 2011, it was incorrectly filed in the petitioner’s office even though it was intended for the Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Hyderabad. The aforementioned letter was forwarded to the Director of Income Tax (Investigation) on February 1, 2011, as it was directed to him. Regarding the legal notice dated July 18, 2011, which the complainant sent to the petitioner, he requested information regarding the actions taken against the society and the status of his three previous complainants. Thus, knowledgeable counsel would vehemently contend that the petitioner did not commit any wrong or neglect its obligation to pursue criminal charges during the entire procedure. 
• He would also argue that, in accordance with the department’s protocol, all complaints—including those received by the petitioner’s office, the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), Hyderabad—must be sent to the Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Hyderabad, who will then determine the appropriate course of action. Therefore, even with regard to the complainants who sent their complaints directly to the petitioner, the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), Hyderabad, inaction cannot be held against the petitioner. He underlined that the case is, therefore, unmaintainable based on the facts.
• In terms of the law, he would contend that even in the unlikely event that the prosecution under Section 166 IPC is brought about, the trial court erred in granting cognizance without insisting that the complainant comply with the mandatory requirement under Section 197 Cr.P.C., namely by obtaining the necessary sanction from the appropriate authority (the Government of India) prior to doing so. Since the President of India or the Central Government appointed the petitioner, a public worker as defined by Section 21 of the IPC, the first respondent was obliged to get approval for prosecution; otherwise, the criminal case would not be tenable. However, the trial court disregarded this crucial condition entirely.
• The prosecution is unmaintainable due to the bar imposed by Section 293 of the Income Tax Act (I.T. Act), which states that no lawsuit or prosecution may be brought against the government or any of its officials for actions taken in good faith or with the intention of carrying out the Act’s provisions. 

Arguments on behalf of the respondent

• The first respondent, who is a party-in-person, contended that he filed two complaints with the petitioner on June 29, 2009, and 21 June 2010, against the society for keeping false records, failing to pay income taxes as indicated by their yearly audit reports, and deceiving the Income Tax Department, the society’s members, and shareholders, among other offenses. In response, he sent the petitioner a letter on January 27, 2011, requesting that the investigation be expedited so that the appropriate steps could be taken. On July 18, 2011, he sent the petitioner a show-cause notice, asking them to explain why criminal proceedings against them could not be started under Section 166 IPC.
• He went on to say that even though letters were addressed to the Director of Income Tax (Investigation), the petitioner could have instructed the Subordinates to take action on his complaint petitions against the society because he is the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) and the Director of Income Tax (Investigation) is subordinate to him. However, the petitioner violated Section 166 of the IPC by failing to do his duty and remaining silent. As a result, he is accountable for the offense. 
• The first respondent refuted the petitioner’s argument that the complaint cannot be maintained without sanction, stating that the petitioner had actually applied to the Central Finance Minister on July 9, 2012, for permission to prosecute the petitioner and that he had not heard back as of yet. Additionally, the respondent pointed out that, in light of the Apex Court’s ruling in Pradhan v. State of Sikkim, a private individual is able to obtain permission and appear in court even after the public servant has been cognizant of the offense or even during the trial stage.

JUDGMENT

According to the Court, even if the claims in the complaint are accepted at face value, they do not initially amount to an offense against the petitioner, so the petitioner’s case comes within Guideline No. 1. So point No.1 is retained in negative. The further discussion and determination of whether the complaint is hit by the provisions under Section 197 Cr.P.C. and Section 293 of the I.T Act are redundant since point No. 1 is held in negative, holding that there is no prima facie material to take cognizance of the offense under Section 166 IPC against the petitioner. As a result, the criminal case against the petitioner is dismissed, and this criminal petition is granted.

CONCLUSION

This is a landmark judgment in deciding the public servant definition and in concluding what comes within its ambit. Any instruction provided by a written law or a mandate originating from a competent authority that the public worker is required by law to follow is referred to as a “direction of the law” under Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code. The Rajasthan High Court noted in Jeewa Ram and others v. Madan Lal and others that in order for Section 166 IPC to be applied, it must be demonstrated that a public servant willfully disobeys any legal directive regarding how he is to conduct himself, intending to cause or knowing it to be likely that he will cause injury to any person by such disobedience. The law’s directive must be disregarded, not a court’s order. Furthermore, the disobedience must be done with the knowledge that it is likely to injure someone or with the goal of doing so. This directive must also relate to the behavior of the publicly employed individual.

The court, in this case, provided the definition of the direction of law, and with the help of Supreme Court judgments, it interpreted whether a case would fall under the ambit of the direction of law or not. The Court quashed this petition under Sec. 482 of CrPC, which provides that if prima facie, no case can be established, then the petition may be quashed by the High Court on certain grounds.