9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Magistrate erred in dismissing the petition to recall the summons without considering the necessity of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. 2. Whether the act of the accused was in the discharge of his official duty, thereby requiring sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. 3. Whether the press publication by the accused was permissible under the guidelines provided by the department. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the Magistrate erred in dismissing the petition to recall the summons without considering the necessity of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. The petitioner argued that the Magistrate should have considered the necessity of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. at the initial stage itself, as the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence is pre-conditioned by obtaining previous sanction from the Government. The Magistrate, however, dismissed the petition, stating that the question of sanction could only be considered during the trial after evidence was taken. The High Court found this approach incorrect, emphasizing that the Magistrate should have applied his mind to the question of sanction before taking cognizance, especially since the complaint disclosed that the act was done by a public servant in the discharge of his official duties. The High Court cited several precedents, including the Supreme Court's observation that the necessity of sanction could be considered at the earliest stage if materials on record indicated that the act was connected with the official duty of the accused. 2. Whether the act of the accused was in the discharge of his official duty, thereby requiring sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. The petitioner contended that the press publication was made in the discharge of his official duty to inform the public about the department's efficiency in detecting offences and to serve as a deterrent. The High Court examined the notifications issued by the department, which permitted the Collector of Customs to make press publications about major seizures and detections to create public awareness and prevent further crimes. The Court concluded that the press publication was an act directly connected with the official duty of the petitioner, thus requiring sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. The Court also referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in R. Balakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala, which held that acts reasonably connected with official duties attract the protection of Section 197 Cr.P.C. 3. Whether the press publication by the accused was permissible under the guidelines provided by the department. The respondent argued that the accused's conduct in calling a press conference and making a public statement was not in pursuance of any duty under the Central Excise Act or its Rules and violated Section 9B and Rule 232A, which restrict publication until after conviction or the imposition of penalties. The High Court, however, found that the departmental notifications allowed the Collector to issue press releases even at the investigation stage to project the department's efforts and create public awareness. The Court noted that while the guidelines advised caution in disclosing details, the act of making a press publication was within the scope of the Collector's duties. Therefore, the act was considered part of the official duties, necessitating sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. Conclusion: The High Court held that the Magistrate's dismissal of the petition without considering the necessity of sanction was erroneous. It concluded that the press publication by the petitioner was an act done in the discharge of his official duty, requiring sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. Consequently, the Court quashed the entire proceedings against the petitioner under Section 500 I.P.C. due to the absence of valid sanction, invoking both revision powers under Section 401 Cr.P.C. and inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
|
