2001 (5) TMI 981 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the complaint under Section 197(2) of Cr.P.C.
2. Applicability of the notification dated 2.6.1979.
3. Interpretation of "maintenance of public order" in the context of Section 197(3) of Cr.P.C.
4. Whether the acts of the accused were done in discharge or purported discharge of their official duties.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Complaint under Section 197(2) of Cr.P.C.:
The appellants filed a complaint alleging wrongful confinement and assault by police officers. The Magistrate took cognizance under Sections 220 and 342 IPC and Sections 147 and 148 of the Bombay Police Act. The respondents objected to the maintainability of the complaint, citing Section 197(2) of Cr.P.C., which requires prior sanction for prosecuting public servants. The Magistrate agreed and discharged the accused, a decision upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court examined whether the acts of the police officers were done in discharge of their official duties, which would necessitate prior sanction under Section 197(2).

2. Applicability of the Notification Dated 2.6.1979:
The notification issued by the Government of Maharashtra under Section 197(3) of Cr.P.C. extended the protection of Section 197(2) to certain categories of police officers. The appellants argued that the notification only applied to officers charged with the maintenance of public order, not law and order. The Supreme Court, however, agreed with the interpretation that the notification applied broadly to members of the police force, as the preamble of the Bombay Police Act indicated their role in maintaining public order.

3. Interpretation of "Maintenance of Public Order" in the Context of Section 197(3) of Cr.P.C.:
The Court discussed various High Court decisions interpreting similar notifications. It agreed with the Gujarat High Court's view that the phrase "charged with the maintenance of public order" should not be narrowly interpreted. The Court noted that police officers' duties related to public order in a broader sense, encompassing acts done in their official capacity.

4. Whether the Acts of the Accused Were Done in Discharge or Purported Discharge of Their Official Duties:
The Court reiterated that the test for Section 197(2) protection is whether the act was done in the discharge of official duty. It cited precedents indicating that the act must have a reasonable connection with official duties. In this case, the police officers' actions, including the failure to produce the appellants before a Magistrate within 24 hours, were done in their official capacity, even if they became unlawful later. Thus, the protection under Section 197(2) applied.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the Magistrate and the High Court, concluding that the police officers were entitled to protection under Section 197(2) of Cr.P.C. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the acts complained of were done in the discharge of official duties, thereby necessitating prior sanction for prosecution.