1961 (10) TMI 112 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Necessity of sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code for prosecuting public servants.
2. Alleged offences under Sections 166 and 290 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Application of Section 145 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Necessity of Sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code:
The core issue in this case was whether the prosecution of the petitioners, who are public servants, required prior sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court highlighted that for an offence under Section 166 of the IPC to be established, it must be shown that the accused, being public servants, conducted themselves in a particular manner in the exercise of their public duties, disobeyed a direction of law knowingly, and intended or knew that their disobedience was likely to cause injury. The court emphasized that the act constituting the offence must arise out of the performance of duty. The court referred to the Federal Court's decision in Hori Ram Singh v. Emperor, which established that acts and illegal omissions in the discharge of official duty require sanction under Section 197. The court concluded that the omissions by the petitioners were integrally connected with their official duties, and thus, Section 197 applied.

2. Alleged Offences under Sections 166 and 290 of the Indian Penal Code:
The complainant alleged that the petitioners, by virtue of their positions, were responsible for the safety of the inhabitants and their property, and failed to prevent a public nuisance or avert accidents, thereby committing offences under Sections 166 and 290 of the IPC. The court noted that for an offence under Section 166, it must be shown that the accused, as public servants, knowingly disobeyed a direction of law in the exercise of their public duties. Section 290 pertains to public nuisance as defined in Section 268, which can be committed by private citizens but, in this case, was alleged against public officers in the discharge of their official duties. The court concluded that the acts or omissions complained of could not have been done otherwise than in the discharge of their official duties, thus attracting the application of Section 197.

3. Application of Section 145 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951:
The respondent argued that the allegations also made out an offence under Section 145 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, which pertains to police officers neglecting their duties. The court examined whether this Act could be applied to the petitioners. It was concluded that petitioners 1 and 2 could not be considered "police officers" under this Act, and even for petitioner 3, Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code would still apply. The court clarified that Section 159 of the Police Act, which provides protection to officers acting bona fide, does not negate the requirement of sanction under Section 197.

Conclusion:
The court made the rule absolute and dismissed the complaint filed by the respondent, thereby allowing the petition. The judgment underscored the necessity of obtaining prior sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code for prosecuting public servants for acts or omissions integrally connected with their official duties.