9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (12) TMI 935 - SC - Indian LawsRequirement to take cognizance of the charge sheets against the respondents without the grant of sanction for prosecution under Section 197 CrPC. - offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 201 and 120-B respectively of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - offence or the act alleged to have been committed by the respondent nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 respectively could be said to have been done while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty or not - HELD THAT - The applicability of Section 197 CrPC has been the subject of judicial interpretation in several cases. One of the first and foremost case laws which examined the pith of the expression any act done or purporting to be done was the Federal Court decision in Dr. Hori Ram Singh v. The Crown 1939 (4) TMI 22 - FEDERAL COURT . Their Lordships were called upon to consider the applicability of Section 270 of the Government of India Act, 1935 which albeit not identical, but was similar to Section 197 CrPC. The Court held that while the offence under Section 409 IPC as regards the criminal breach of trust by a public servant would not require consent from the Governor for it cannot be done or purported to be done in the execution of his duty, yet the offence under Section 477A IPC as regards the falsification of accounts would require the Governor s consent. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Gill and Another v. The King 1948 (2) TMI 23 - PRIVY COUNCIL was faced with deciding whether sanction was required under Section 197 CrPC for the prosecution of a public servant charged with the offence of bribery and/or conspiracy to take bribes. The Court was of the opinion that it was impossible to distinguish or differentiate between S. 270 of the Government of India Act, 1935 and S. 197 CrPC, at least in relation to offences of this character. In Albert West Meads v. The King 1948 (4) TMI 10 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , the Privy Council echoed the view taken in Gill (supra) and held that the appellant in that case could not justify that the act of fraudulently misapplying money entrusted to his care as a public servant was an act done by him by virtue of his office. The legal position that emerges from a conspectus of all the decisions referred to above is that it is not possible to carve out one universal rule that can be uniformly applied to the multivarious facts and circumstances in the context of which the protection under Section 197 CrPC is sought for. Any attempt to lay down such a homogenous standard would create unnecessary rigidity as regards the scope of application of this provision. The object behind the enactment of Section 197 CrPC is to protect responsible public servants against institution of possibly false or vexatious criminal proceedings for offences alleged to have been committed by them while they are acting or purporting to act in their official capacity. It is to ensure that the public servants are not prosecuted for anything which is done by them in the discharge of their official duties, without any reasonable cause - The expression any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty in Section 197 CrPC must neither be construed narrowly nor widely and the correct approach would be to strike a balance between the two extremes. The section should be construed strictly to the extent that its operation is limited only to those acts which are discharged in the course of duty . It follows that when a police official is said to have lodged a false case, he cannot claim that sanction for prosecution under Section 197 CrPC was required since it can be no part of the official duty of a public official to lodge a bogus case and fabricate evidence or documents in connection with the same. On examining the quality of the act, it is evident that there exists no reasonable or rational nexus between such an act and the duties assigned to the public servant for the claim that it was done or purported to be done in the discharge of his official duty. The mere fact that an opportunity to register a false case was furnished by the official duty would certainly not be sufficient to apply Section 197 CrPC - any act or offence committed by the respondent no. 1 in the present case can safely be said to have been outside the scope of his official duty which obviates the question of sanction for his prosecution. The Trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial and at any stage of the trial if the evidence suggests that the acts complained of were indeed done or purported to be done in the discharge of official duty by respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 respectively or that the FIR registered by them was not bogus, the trial may be stayed for want of sanction. Therefore, the question of sanction only qua respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 respectively is left open to be appropriately decided by the Trial Court at a suitable stage, in accordance with the law, without being prejudiced by any of the observations made in this order as well as in the order passed by the High Court. The impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside - Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the CJM, Firozabad could have taken cognizance of the charge sheets against the respondents without the grant of sanction for prosecution under Section 197 CrPC. 2. Whether the acts alleged against the respondents were done while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Requirement of Sanction under Section 197 CrPC: The core issue was whether the acts alleged against the respondents were committed in the discharge of their official duties, necessitating sanction under Section 197 CrPC. The court examined the legal framework of Section 197 CrPC, which protects public servants from prosecution for acts done in the discharge of official duties without prior sanction. The provision aims to shield honest officials from vexatious litigation, allowing them to perform their duties fearlessly. However, the protection is not absolute and applies only when the act is integrally connected with official duties. The court reiterated that the expression "acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty" should not be construed too narrowly or too widely. The correct approach is to strike a balance, ensuring that only acts directly connected to official duties are protected. The court emphasized that the quality of the act, rather than the opportunity provided by the official position, determines the applicability of Section 197 CrPC. The court noted that if the act complained of is directly concerned with official duties, sanction is necessary. However, if the act is unconnected with such duties, no sanction is required. The court highlighted that the necessity for sanction may reveal itself during the progress of the case, and it is open to the accused to place materials on record to show the connection between the act and official duty. 2. Analysis of the Alleged Acts: The court examined whether the alleged acts of lodging a false case and fabricating evidence were done in the discharge of official duties. It was alleged that the respondents registered a false FIR to provide an alibi for Ashok Dixit, accused of murder. The court observed that it can be no part of an official's duty to lodge a bogus case and fabricate evidence. Such acts have no reasonable nexus with the duties assigned to public servants. The court noted that the respondent no. 1 was not posted at the Murar Police Station when the alleged false case was registered, thus obviating the question of sanction for his prosecution. As for respondent nos. 3, 4, and 5, if they indeed played a dubious role in registering a false case, the requirement of sanction would not be a prerequisite for proceeding with the criminal proceedings. Conclusion: The court concluded that the criminal proceedings should not have been quashed at such a preliminary stage. The CJM, Firozabad, had rightly taken cognizance of the charge sheets. The High Court erred in quashing the proceedings without adequately considering the necessity of sanction. The trial court is directed to proceed with the trial, and if evidence suggests that the acts were done in the discharge of official duty, the trial may be stayed for want of sanction. The question of sanction for respondent nos. 3, 4, and 5 is left open to be decided by the trial court at an appropriate stage. The appeals were allowed, and the impugned order of the High Court was set aside.
|
