1997 (11) TMI 546 - SC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the High Court's order dated September 10, 1996.
2. Scope of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).
3. Requirement of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. for initiating criminal proceedings against government officials.
4. Whether the acts committed by the respondents were in the discharge of official duties.
5. Admissibility of evidence and documents at the stage of considering the requirement of sanction.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the High Court's Order:
The appellant contended that the High Court's order dated September 10, 1996, resulted in manifest injustice and was patently illegal, improper, and unjustified. The High Court had allowed the writ petitions filed by respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and dismissed the Criminal Revision Application filed by the appellant. The appellant argued that the High Court improperly exercised its revisional jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 Cr.P.C.

2. Scope of Supervisory Jurisdiction:
The appellant argued that the High Court, in exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 and inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., should not have engaged in a full-fledged appreciation of evidence like a regular appellate court. The trial court had issued processes against respondents Nos. 1 to 3 based on prima facie evidence of cognizable offenses. The High Court's interference was deemed improper as the trial court had exercised its discretion judicially.

3. Requirement of Sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C.:
The appellant contended that sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is not required unless the complaint on its face discloses official action. The acts alleged against the respondents did not prima facie appear to be in the purported exercise of official duties, and thus, no sanction was warranted at the initial stage. The appellant cited several Supreme Court decisions to support this contention, including Nagaraj Vs. State of Mysore and Chandra Deo Singh Vs. Prakash Chandra Bose.

4. Acts Committed in Discharge of Official Duties:
The respondents argued that their actions were in the discharge of official duties and thus required sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. The learned Attorney General submitted that the respondents acted to prevent a law and order situation, which justified their actions. The statements of witnesses indicated that the respondents had taken charge of the situation to prevent further trouble. The Supreme Court agreed that the alleged acts were purported to be in the exercise of official duties, making a case for sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C.

5. Admissibility of Evidence and Documents:
The Supreme Court held that the question of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. should not be confused with the scheme of trial under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused should be allowed to produce relevant documents and materials to establish the necessity for sanction. The Court referred to several decisions, including Matajog Dubey Vs. H.C. Bhari and S.B. Saha's case, to support this view. The Court concluded that the accused could produce documentary materials admissible without formal proof to support the plea of sanction.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the High Court's order was legal and justified. The Court emphasized that the acts committed by the respondents were purported to be in the exercise of official duties, thus requiring sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.