9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether prior sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC is necessary for prosecuting a public servant. 2. Determining the application of Section 197 of the CrPC to the facts of the case. 3. The scope of protection provided by Section 197 in cases involving acts allegedly done by public servants during the discharge of their duties. Analysis: 1. The appellant filed a complaint against the 2nd respondent, a Post Master General, under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C. for allegedly kicking and abusing him during an incident at the Head Post Office. The 2nd respondent sought protection under Section 197 of the CrPC, arguing that the acts, if done, were in the discharge of his duties as a public servant. The High Court allowed the revision petition, holding that prosecution required prior sanction from the Central Government, leading to the appeal. 2. The Supreme Court reiterated the well-settled law on the necessity of sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC to prevent harassment of public servants. The court emphasized that the key consideration is whether the alleged offence was committed in the discharge of official duty or purported to be so. The judgment highlighted that the protection under Section 197 extends beyond acts directly linked to official duty and includes acts done in purported execution of duty, even if negligently performed. The court referenced various precedents to define the scope of the section's application. 3. The court applied the established test to the facts of the case and concluded that the acts of kicking and abusing the complainant by the 2nd respondent did not fall within the purview of duties as a public servant. The judgment clarified that the determination of whether an act is in purported execution of duty is crucial at the initial stage, with the possibility of sanction requirement evolving as the case progresses. The court emphasized that the defense of acts being done in the course of official duty must have a reasonable connection to the duty performed, not a fanciful claim. The judgment highlighted the importance of assessing the necessity for sanction at different stages of the legal proceedings. 4. Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and emphasizing that the acts complained of were not done in the purported exercise of the 2nd respondent's duty. The judgment underscored that the question of sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC is subject to evolving circumstances during the legal process, with the possibility of establishing the need for sanction based on facts emerging during the trial.
|
