1955 (10) TMI 3 - SC - Income Tax

Whether the Court could take cognisance of the case without previous sanction and for this purpose the Court has to find out if the act complained against was committed by the accused while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty. Once this is settled, the case proceeds or is thrown out? Held that - The assault and use of criminal force etc. alleged against the accused are definitely related to the performance of their official duties. But taken along with them, it seems to us to be an obvious case for sanction. The injuries--a couple of abrasions and a swelling on Nandram Agarwala and two ecchymosis on Matajog--indicate nothing more than a scuffle which is likely to have ensued when there were angry protests against the search and a pushing aside of the protetors so that the search may go on unimpeded. Mr. Isaacs finally pointed out that the fourth accused Nageswar Tewari was a constable and the case should have been allowed to proceed against him at least. This question arises only in Nandram Agarwala s case. The Magistrate who dismissed the complaint took the view that there was no use in proceeding against him alone, as the main attack was directed against the Income-Tax Officials. No such grievance was urged before the High Court and it is not raised in the grounds for special leave. We hold that the orders of the High Court are correct and dismiss these two appeals.

Issues Involved:
1. Requirement of sanction under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code.
2. Legality of actions taken by officials during the search.
3. Constitutional validity of Section 5(1) of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act and Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code.
4. Nature of acts committed by the officials and their connection to official duties.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Requirement of Sanction under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code:
The core issue was whether the actions of the officials necessitated prior sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court in both Criminal Revision Petitions concluded that the acts of the officials were done in the exercise of their official duties, thus requiring sanction. The Supreme Court upheld this view, stating that there must be a reasonable connection between the act and the official duty, and that the act must bear such relation to the duty that the accused could lay a reasonable claim that it was done in the course of performing their duty. The Court emphasized that the necessity for sanction could be determined at any stage of the proceedings and that the act must be related to the discharge of official duty.

2. Legality of Actions Taken by Officials During the Search:
The officials were authorized by a warrant to search specific premises. The complainants alleged that the officials used excessive force and committed acts of assault and wrongful confinement. The Court noted that while more than reasonable force might have been used, the officials could still claim that their actions were related to their official duties. The Court rejected the extreme proposition that officials had no right to use force to remove obstruction during a lawful search, as it would frustrate the discharge of official duty.

3. Constitutional Validity of Section 5(1) of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act and Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code:
The appellants challenged the constitutional validity of Section 5(1) of the Act and Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code, arguing that they were discriminatory and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court declined to address the constitutional point as it was not raised before the High Court or in the grounds for special leave to appeal. The Court held that Article 14 did not render Section 197 ultra vires, as the discrimination was based on a rational classification, protecting public servants from harassment in the discharge of official duties.

4. Nature of Acts Committed by the Officials and Their Connection to Official Duties:
The Court examined whether the acts complained of were integrally connected with the officials' duties. The Court referred to precedents and concluded that the acts must have something to do with the discharge of official duty. The Court found that the alleged acts of assault and use of criminal force were related to the performance of official duties, as they occurred during the execution of a lawful search. The Court noted that the injuries sustained by the complainants indicated a scuffle likely to have ensued during the search, supporting the view that the acts were connected to the officials' duties.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the High Court's orders. The Court held that the acts of the officials were related to their official duties, necessitating prior sanction under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code. The Court also upheld the legality of the officials' actions during the search and rejected the constitutional challenge to the relevant statutory provisions.

← Previous Next →