9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (7) TMI 1247 - SC - Indian LawsProsecuting a Government servant - need for sanction under Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the offences under Indian Penal Code and under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Held that - For the offences under the Corruption Act is under Section 197 of the Code and/or sanction mandated under a special statute (as postulated under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act) would be a necessary pre-requisite before a Court of competent jurisdiction takes cognizance of an offence (whether under the Indian Penal Code or under the concerned special statutory enactment). The procedure for obtaining sanction would be governed by the provisions of the Code and/or as mandated under the special enactment. The words engaged in Section 197 of the Code are ...no court shall take cognizance of such offence except with previous sanction... . Likewise sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act provides No Court shall take cognizance.. except with the previous sanction... . The mandate is clear and unambiguous that a Court shall not take cognizance without sanction. The same needs no further elaboration. Therefore a Court just cannot take cognizance without sanction by the appropriate authority. Thus viewed we find no merit in the second contention advanced at the hands of learned counsel for the respondents that where cognizance is taken under Section 319 of the Code sanction either under Section 197 of the Code (or under the concerned special enactment) is not a mandatory pre-requisite. According to learned counsel representing respondent no. 2 the position concluded above would give the impression that the determination rendered by a Court under Section 319 of the Code is subservient to the decision of the competent authority under Section 197. No not at all. The grant of sanction under Section 197 can be assailed by the accused by taking recourse to judicial review. Likewise the order declining sanction can similarly be assailed by the complainant or the prosecution. For the reasons recorded hereinabove and in view of the conclusions recorded by us in paragraph 17 we are of the view that there is no merit in the instant appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the detention of Neeraj Kumar from 24.06.1999 to 28.06.1999. 2. Requirement of sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for prosecuting the appellants. 3. Applicability of Section 319 of the CrPC in the context of requiring sanction under Section 197. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Detention of Neeraj Kumar from 24.06.1999 to 28.06.1999 The primary issue revolves around whether Neeraj Kumar was illegally detained by the police officials from 24.06.1999 to 28.06.1999. Usha Rani, Neeraj Kumar's mother, claimed that her son was detained illegally before his formal arrest on 28.06.1999. Multiple investigations by senior police officers concluded that there was no material evidence to support Usha Rani's allegations. Despite these findings, the matter was further investigated, and an Additional District and Sessions Judge concluded that Neeraj Kumar had been falsely implicated. 2. Requirement of Sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC for Prosecuting the Appellants The appellants argued that their prosecution was unsustainable without prior sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC, which protects public servants from prosecution for acts done "while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their official duty." The court examined various precedents to determine the scope of this protection. It was emphasized that the protection under Section 197 applies only if the act complained of is directly connected with the official duty. The court concluded that the alleged illegal detention of Neeraj Kumar from 24.06.1999 to 28.06.1999 did not fall within the scope of "acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their official duties" as the formalities under the CrPC were not followed. 3. Applicability of Section 319 of the CrPC in the Context of Requiring Sanction under Section 197 The court addressed whether the requirement of sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC extends to cases where cognizance is taken under Section 319 of the CrPC. Section 319 allows a court to proceed against any person appearing to be guilty of an offense based on evidence recorded during the trial. The court held that the mandate of Section 197, which requires prior sanction for prosecution, applies irrespective of whether cognizance is taken under Section 190 or Section 319 of the CrPC. The court clarified that the protection under Section 197 is not negated by the judicial determination under Section 319, and the requirement of sanction remains a prerequisite for taking cognizance. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the alleged detention of Neeraj Kumar from 24.06.1999 to 28.06.1999 did not qualify as an act done "while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty." Consequently, no sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC was required for prosecuting the appellants for the period of alleged illegal detention. The court also affirmed that the requirement of sanction under Section 197 applies to cases where cognizance is taken under Section 319 of the CrPC.
|
