9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of Chief Magistrate without sanction for prosecution under Section 270 of the Government of India Act or Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. Interpretation and applicability of Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 3. Requirement of sanction for prosecution of a public servant under Section 197. Detailed Analysis: 1. The appellant appealed against his conviction under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code without the required sanction for prosecution under Section 270 of the Government of India Act or Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The central issue was whether the Chief Magistrate had jurisdiction to try and convict the appellant without such sanction. The appeal was granted based on this ground, similar to a previous case where the same question was raised (Gill v. King). 2. The judgment in Gill v. The King provided clarity on the scope of Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It was established that a public servant acts in the discharge of official duty only if the act falls within the scope of that duty. The judgment emphasized that the requirement of sanction under Section 197 is not necessary for acts that do not relate to official duty. In the present case, the appellant's actions did not require sanction under Section 197 as they were not deemed to be in the discharge of his official duty. 3. The appellant's counsel argued for the necessity of sanction under Section 197 for offenses that would not be considered offenses unless committed by a public servant. However, the court reiterated that Section 197 applies to offenses committed by a public servant while acting in the discharge of official duty. The court maintained that the wording of Section 197 does not support the argument that sanction is required for offenses that are offenses only if committed by a public servant. The court concluded that no sanction was necessary for the prosecution of the appellant under Section 197, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
|
