9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Magistrate in the absence of sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C. and u/s 155 of the Customs Act. 2. Requirement of sanction for prosecution of public servants for offences under Sections 120B/409 IPC. Summary: 1. Jurisdiction of the Magistrate in the absence of sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C. and u/s 155 of the Customs Act: The appellants contended that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint without the requisite sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C. and u/s 155 of the Customs Act. The Magistrate accepted this objection and discharged the accused, relying on the decision in *Shreekantiah Rammayya Munipalli & Anr. v. State of Bombay*. The Additional Sessions Judge upheld this decision, stating that there was no evidence to show that the goods remained in the personal custody of the appellants, making it difficult to hold them responsible for any shortage. 2. Requirement of sanction for prosecution of public servants for offences under Sections 120B/409 IPC: The High Court reversed the lower courts' decisions, holding that no sanction was required for prosecuting the appellants for offences under Sections 120B/409 IPC, as they were not acting in the discharge of their official duties when they allegedly misappropriated the goods. The Supreme Court upheld this view, stating that the alleged act of misappropriation did not bear an integral relation to the appellants' official duties. The Court emphasized that the question of sanction depends on whether the act complained of is directly and reasonably connected with the official duty. In this case, the alleged misappropriation was not committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty, and thus, no sanction was necessary. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the alleged criminal misappropriation by the appellants was not committed in the discharge of their official duties, and therefore, no sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C. was required for their prosecution.
|
