9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Applicability of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the case. Analysis: The case revolves around the applicability of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the situation. The appellant, a Sub-Divisional Officer, was involved in the removal of encroachments from road and roadside lands under a court order. During this operation, a complaint was filed against the appellant, alleging offenses such as house trespass, assault preparation, theft, and mischief. The High Court of Patna dismissed the appellant's petition seeking quashing of the cognizance order, stating that the alleged offenses were not directly connected to the appellant's official duty. The High Court emphasized that the actions of the appellant, including entering the complainant's chambers, using abusive language, and detaining the complainant and his wife, were not justified in the context of official duty. The Supreme Court delved into the interpretation of Section 197 Cr.P.C., which provides protection to public servants against prosecution for offenses committed while acting in the discharge of official duty. The Court highlighted that for this protection to apply, two conditions must be met: the accused must be a public servant removable only with government sanction, and the offense must be alleged to have been committed in the discharge of official duty. The Court cited precedents to emphasize that there must be a reasonable nexus between the alleged offense and the official duties of the public servant. The principle was reiterated that the act complained of must be related to the discharge of official duty, even if it exceeds what is strictly necessary. In analyzing previous cases, the Court emphasized that the question of sanction under Section 197 can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. The Court referred to a case where the actions of a public servant, though allegedly involving abuse of official position, were considered to fall within the scope of official duties, necessitating sanction for prosecution. In another case, the Court held that the acts complained of by a public servant, which were part of official duty, required prior sanction for prosecution. Applying these principles to the present case, the Court concluded that the appellant's actions during the encroachment removal operation were connected to his official duty as a Sub-Divisional Officer. Therefore, the appellant was entitled to immunity from criminal proceedings without sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and quashing the cognizance order. The Court directed the concerned authority to obtain necessary sanction from the competent authority as required under Section 197 Cr.P.C. before proceeding further in accordance with the law.
|
