2016 (4) TMI 1434 - SC - Indian Laws

Prosecution or other legal proceedings relating to Police officers - Institution of proceedings without prior sanction of the Central Government is allowed or not - Section 6 of Punjab Disturbed Areas Act 1983 - HELD THAT - It has been laid down in Gauri Shankar Prasad 2000 (4) TMI 848 - SUPREME COURT that in case offence has been committed while discharging his duties by an accused and there is a reasonable nexus with official duties if answer is in the affirmative then sanction is required. However it would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether there is a reasonable nexus with official duties to be discharged. In PK PRADHAN VERSUS THE STATE OF SIKKIM REPRESENTED BY C.B.I. 2001 (7) TMI 1298 - SUPREME COURT this Court considered the provisions contained in Section 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure whether an offence committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty and laid down that the test to determine the aforesaid is that the act complained of must be an offence and must be done in discharge of official duty. In any view of the matter there must be a reasonable connection between the act and the official duty. It does not matter that the act exceeds what is strictly necessary for the discharge of the official duty since that question would arise only later when the trial proceeds. However no sanction is required where there is no such connection and the official status furnishes only the occasion or opportunity for the acts. In STATE OF ORISSA THROUGH KUMAR RAGHVENDRA SINGH AND ORS. VERSUS GANESH CHANDRA JEW 2004 (3) TMI 824 - SUPREME COURT this Court has held that protection Under Section 197 is available only when the act done by the public servant is reasonably connected with the discharge of his official duty and is not merely a cloak for doing the objectionable act. The test to determine a reasonable connection between the act complained of and the official duty is that even in case the public servant has exceeded in his duty if there exists a reasonable connection it will not deprive him of the protection. This Court has also observed that there cannot be a universal Rule to determine whether there is a reasonable connection between the act done and the official duty nor is it possible to lay down any such rule. In the instant cases the allegation as per the prosecution case it was a case of fake encounter or death caused by torture whereas the defence of the accused person is that it was a case in discharge of official duty and as the deceased was involved in the terrorist activities and while maintaining law and order the incident has taken place. The incident was in the course of discharge of official duty. Considering the aforesaid principles in case the version of the prosecution is found to be correct there is no requirement of any sanction. However it would be open to the accused persons to adduce the evidence in defence and to submit such other materials on record indicating that the incident has taken place in discharge of their official duties and the orders passed earlier would not come in the way of the trial court to decide the question afresh in the light of the aforesaid principles from stage to stage or even at the time of conclusion of the trial at the time of judgment. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether prosecution or other legal proceedings against police officers can be instituted without prior sanction of the Central Government under Section 6 of the Punjab Disturbed Areas Act, 1983 (as amended in 1989).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Requirement of Sanction Under Section 6 of the Punjab Disturbed Areas Act, 1983:
The primary question in the appeals was whether, under Section 6 of the Punjab Disturbed Areas Act, 1983 (as amended in 1989), the prosecution or other legal proceedings against police officers could be initiated without the prior sanction of the Central Government. The appellants, who were police officers, argued that they were discharging their duties during a period of heightened terrorist activity in Punjab, and thus, any legal proceedings against them required prior sanction from the Central Government. The CBI, on the other hand, contended that no such sanction was necessary because the alleged acts were not part of the appellants' official duties but were criminal acts like fake encounters and custodial torture.

2. Legal Precedents and Judicial Reasoning:
The judgment extensively reviewed several legal precedents to determine the necessity of sanction under similar circumstances. It was noted that the protection of sanction is intended to assure honest officers that they can perform their duties without fear of vexatious prosecution. However, this protection does not extend to criminal acts. The court cited various cases, including *Dr. Hori Ram Singh v. Emperor* and *Shreekantiah Ramayya Munipalli v. The State of Bombay*, to illustrate that the necessity of sanction is determined by whether the act has a reasonable connection with the discharge of official duties.

3. Connection Between Act and Official Duty:
The court emphasized that for the protection under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to apply, there must be a reasonable connection between the act and the official duty. If the act is directly related to the official duty, even if it exceeds what is necessary, sanction is required. However, if the act is a criminal activity with no connection to official duties, no sanction is needed. The court referred to cases like *State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Budhikota Subbarao* and *State of Orissa and Ors. v. Ganesh Chandra Jew* to support this principle.

4. Stage of Determining Sanction:
The court held that the question of whether sanction is necessary can arise at any stage of the proceedings and must be determined based on the facts and evidence presented. The court can re-examine the necessity of sanction at various stages, including during the trial or at the conclusion of the trial. This principle was supported by cases like *P.K. Pradhan v. State of Sikkim* and *State of Karnataka through CBI v. C. Nagarajaswamy*.

5. Specific Case Analysis:
In the specific cases at hand, the prosecution alleged that the deaths were caused by fake encounters or torture, while the defense claimed the incidents occurred during the discharge of official duties. The court concluded that if the prosecution's version is correct, no sanction is required. However, the accused have the right to present evidence to show that the acts were part of their official duties. The trial court must proceed based on the prosecution's version initially but can re-decide the question of sanction if evidence suggests a reasonable connection to official duties.

Conclusion:
The court disposed of the appeals and writ petitions with directions that the trial court should proceed based on the prosecution's version but remain open to re-examining the necessity of sanction if evidence indicates a reasonable connection to the discharge of official duties. The trial court must consider the principles outlined in the judgment and decide the question of sanction from stage to stage or at the conclusion of the trial.