9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (7) TMI 1379 - SC - Indian LawsGrant of sanction Under Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure - public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code - Case of appellant is that the sanction for prosecution of the Appellant Under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedurewas not obtained or granted prior to the date of taking of cognizance - whether the acts giving rise to the alleged offences had been committed by the accused in the actual or purported discharge of his official duties? - HELD THAT - In a series of pronouncements commencing with Satwant Singh v. State of Punjab 1959 (10) TMI 32 - SUPREME COURT , Harihar Prasad v. State of Bihar 1971 (9) TMI 186 - SUPREME COURT and Prakash Singh Badal and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors. 2006 (12) TMI 548 - SUPREME COURT it has been consistently held that it can be no part of the duty of a public servant or acting in the discharge of his official duties to commit any of the offences covered by Section 406, 409, 420 etc. and the official status of the public servant can, at best, only provide an opportunity for commission of the offences. Therefore, no sanction for prosecution of the public servant for such offences would be required Under Section 197 of the Code. Notwithstanding the above, the High Court had granted liberty to the Appellant to raise the issue of sanction, if so required, depending on the evidence that may come on record in the course of the trial. There are no occasion to cause any interference with the orders passed by the High Court in the proceedings instituted before it by the Appellant which have been impugned in the appeals under consideration - appeal dismissed.
Issues:
1. Requirement of sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Determination of public servant status and discharge of official duties. 3. Applicability of Section 197(1) of the Code to the accused. 4. Interpretation of the provisions of Section 197(1) of the Code. 5. Legal implications of the High Court's orders challenged in the appeals. Analysis: 1. The judgment revolves around the essential issue of whether the accused, a member of the Indian Administrative Service serving on deputation, required sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of the Code. The accused challenged the orders passed by the Trial Court and Additional Sessions Judge, contending that the prosecution lacked the necessary sanction. The High Court upheld these orders, leading to the appeals before the Supreme Court. 2. The Court delved into the determination of the accused's status as a public servant and the discharge of official duties. It highlighted the mandatory requirements under Section 197(1) of the Code, emphasizing that the accused must be a public servant, removable from office only with government sanction, and the alleged offences must relate to the discharge of official duties. The Court referred to precedents to establish the legal principles guiding the interpretation of these requirements. 3. The judgment scrutinized the applicability of Section 197(1) of the Code to the accused, focusing on whether the accused's position as a deputation member of the Indian Administrative Service in a cooperative society qualified as a public servant role necessitating sanction for prosecution. The Court analyzed the legal implications of the accused's role and the nature of the alleged offences in relation to official duties. 4. In interpreting the provisions of Section 197(1) of the Code, the Court examined the specific requirements and their relevance to the accused's case. It cited previous judgments to elucidate the timing and stages at which the question of sanction for prosecution could be raised and determined, underscoring the importance of evidence and trial proceedings in assessing the need for sanction. 5. Finally, the judgment addressed the legal consequences of the High Court's orders that were challenged in the appeals. The Court concluded that based on the discussions and legal analysis presented, there was no justification for interfering with the High Court's decisions. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed, affirming the orders passed by the High Court in the cases under consideration.
|
