Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2016 (6) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2016 (6) TMI 1138 - SC - Indian Laws


Issues Involved:
1. Whether the High Court correctly accepted the submission that the trial was invalid due to the absence of sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC.
2. Whether the respondent, being an employee of a government-owned corporation, is considered a public servant requiring sanction for prosecution.
3. The applicability of Section 197 CrPC to the case at hand.
4. The necessity of sanction under Section 197 CrPC for prosecuting the respondent for offences under Sections 409, 467, 468, and 471 IPC.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Trial Without Sanction:
The primary issue was whether the trial of the respondent, who was convicted under Sections 409, 467, 468, and 471 IPC, was invalid due to the absence of sanction under Section 197 CrPC. The High Court had accepted the argument that the trial was vitiated for lack of sanction, leading to the conviction and sentence being set aside. The Supreme Court analyzed the necessity of sanction under Section 197 CrPC, which protects public servants from vexatious proceedings for acts done in the discharge of official duties. The Court emphasized that the act must be directly connected with official duties to require sanction.

2. Status of the Respondent as a Public Servant:
The respondent was an employee of a government-owned corporation, and the High Court had ruled that he was a public servant as per Section 21 of IPC, thus requiring sanction for prosecution. The Supreme Court examined whether the respondent's actions, which included misappropriation and tampering with records, were done in the discharge of official duties. The Court concluded that the nature of the offences (criminal breach of trust and forgery) did not fall within the scope of official duties, thus not necessitating sanction under Section 197 CrPC.

3. Applicability of Section 197 CrPC:
The Supreme Court referred to various precedents to determine the applicability of Section 197 CrPC. It noted that sanction is required only when the offence is directly related to the discharge of official duties. The Court cited cases such as Matajog Dube, Arulswami, and B. Saha to illustrate that the act must bear a reasonable connection to official duties. The Court concluded that the respondent's acts of misappropriation and forgery were not acts done in the discharge of official duties, thereby not requiring sanction under Section 197 CrPC.

4. Necessity of Sanction for Specific Offences:
The Supreme Court analyzed whether sanction was necessary for prosecuting the respondent under Sections 409, 467, 468, and 471 IPC. It referred to previous judgments, including State of H.P. v. M.P. Gupta and Parkash Singh Badal, which held that offences like cheating and forgery do not typically fall under acts done in official capacity. The Court reiterated that the respondent's actions could not be justified as part of his official duties, thus negating the need for sanction.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in setting aside the conviction and sentence due to the absence of sanction under Section 197 CrPC. The Court ruled that the respondent's actions were not inextricably linked to his official duties, and therefore, sanction was not required. The judgment and order of the High Court were set aside, and the matter was remitted to the High Court to decide the revision petition in accordance with the law.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates