9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Necessity of government sanction for prosecution under s. 106 of the Madras Act. 2. Validity of the sanction granted by the Collector. 3. Interpretation of the requirement of sanction for prosecution of a public servant under s. 409 of the Indian Penal Code. Analysis: Issue 1: Necessity of government sanction for prosecution under s. 106 of the Madras Act The case involved the appellant being convicted under s. 409 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment. The appellant argued that prosecution was not maintainable without the sanction of the State Government under s. 106 of the Madras Act. The High Court held that as the appellant had ceased to hold the office of President when the prosecution was initiated, the sanction of the Collector was sufficient, and government sanction was not required. The Supreme Court concurred, stating that no government sanction under s. 106 of the Madras Act was necessary for the prosecution of the appellant under s. 409 of the Indian Penal Code. Issue 2: Validity of the sanction granted by the Collector The appellant contended that the sanction granted by the Collector was not valid in law, and sanction should have been given by the State Government under s. 106 of the Madras Act. The High Court held that the sanction by the Collector sufficed. The Supreme Court did not delve into the argument extensively but concluded that the conviction of the appellant was not invalid due to the lack of government sanction under s. 106 of the Madras Act. Issue 3: Interpretation of the requirement of sanction for prosecution of a public servant under s. 409 of the Indian Penal Code The Court referred to various precedents to analyze the necessity of sanction for prosecuting a public servant under s. 409 of the Indian Penal Code. It was established that not every offence committed by a public servant requires sanction for prosecution, but only acts directly related to official duties necessitate such sanction. The Court emphasized that the quality of the act, whether within or in excess of official duties, determines the need for protection under the law. Citing previous cases, the Court clarified that the official status of a public servant does not automatically require government sanction for prosecution if the offence is not directly connected to official duties. In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed both appeals, affirming that government sanction under s. 106 of the Madras Act was not necessary for the prosecution of the appellant under s. 409 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court reiterated the principles regarding the requirement of sanction for prosecuting public servants under relevant legal provisions.
|
