Not appointed by the State Government, and not removable by it: that was the Bench’s starting point in holding that Section 197 CrPC Protection cannot be claimed by employees of government companies merely because they are public servants. The Supreme Court set aside the discharge of three Jodhpur Discom engineers accused of abetting electricity theft.
New Delhi: Rajasthan High Court orders that had discharged three employees of Jodhpur Discoms from charges under the Electricity Act, 2003 for want of prior sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been set aside by the Supreme Court, which held that an employee of a government instrumentality does not automatically become a government servant entitled to that protection [Jodhpur Discoms v. Lalit Soni & Anr. Etc.].
A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar passed the order on October 14, 2026, in appeals arising out of SLP (Crl) Nos. 19405 to 19408 of 2025.
Public servant, but not a government servant
The Bench noted that although the employees were public servants under Section 169 of the Electricity Act, they were employees of Jodhpur Discoms and were neither appointed by, nor removable by, the State Government. Relying on Mohd. Hadi Raja v. State of Bihar (1998) and Punjab State Warehousing Corporation v. Bhushan Chander (2016), it reiterated that officers of government companies and public undertakings do not get Section 197 protection merely because their organisations are “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution.
“It is, thus, fairly well settled that an employee of a Government instrumentality, does not ipso facto becomes a Government servant so as to be entitled for protection under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. merely because an employee is a public servant.”
The very basis of the High Court’s judgment, which gave the respondents protection under Section 197, was held to be “flawed being contrary to the settled judicial precedent of this Court”.
The FIR and the discharge
The prosecution arose out of FIR No. 420/2012 registered at Police Station APT (Prevention of Electricity Theft, Rural), Jodhpur, under Sections 135 to 138 and 150(1)(2) of the Electricity Act. The prosecution alleged that Discom employees had abetted electricity theft by Balim Steel Pvt. Ltd. through meter tampering, and that the company had gained about Rs 12.99 crore from the theft, of which about Rs 8.15 crore remained unpaid. These are allegations of the prosecution and have not been tested at trial.
A charge sheet was filed, cognizance was taken and charges were framed. On revision, the Rajasthan High Court, by orders dated April 2, 2025, discharged the employees on the ground that sanction under Section 197 CrPC had not been obtained. Jodhpur Discoms then appealed to the Supreme Court.
What happens to the three engineers
The Bench set aside the High Court’s orders insofar as they discharged Lalit Soni, then an Executive Engineer, Nema Ram, then an Assistant Engineer, and Vikash Jhanjadiya, then a Junior Engineer. The High Court had not examined their challenge to the framing of charges on merits, so their criminal revision petitions were restored to its file, for it to decide whether the charge sheet material justified cognizance and the framing of charges.
The appeal against a fourth respondent, Sur Singh, was dismissed. The three engineers were given liberty to ask the High Court for early disposal of their revision petitions. The Court has expressed no view on whether the charges against them will stand, and they are presumed innocent unless proved guilty.
Why the order matters
Section 197 CrPC (now Section 218 of the BNSS) shields public servants who can be removed only by or with the sanction of the government from prosecution for acts done in official duty without prior sanction. The order restates that this shield turns on who appoints and removes the employee, not on the label of public servant or on the employer being “State” under Article 12.
For power distribution companies, banks and other public sector undertakings, this means a discharge on the sole ground of missing Section 197 sanction is unlikely to survive. The accused employees remain free to contest the charges on the evidence.
Case Title: Jodhpur Discoms v. Lalit Soni & Anr. Etc. [Criminal Appeals arising out of SLP (Crl) Nos. 19405-19408/2025]
Bench: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: October 14, 2026
Appearances: S. Vallinayagam, Bhavya Arora, Durga Vallinayagam, Yashraj Singh Bundela (AoR) for the appellant; Senior Advocate Gagan Gupta with Anuj Tiwari (AoR) and others for the respondents