Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Section 197—Sanction for prosecution—Requirement—Where, at an initial stage, the Court may not find it necessary to require sanction, but if at a later stage finds that the act of the public servant was in discharge of his official duty, appropriate directions for obtaining sanction can be given—However, if the Court at the initial stage itself is satisfied that an act alleged against an accused is in the discharge of his official function, the requirement of sanction would get attracted immediately.
Held : There has to be a reasonable connection between the act complained of and the discharge of official duty. For invoking protection under Section 197 of the Code, the acts of the accused, complained of, must be such that the same cannot be separated from the discharge of official duty. The claim of the accused should not be pretended or fanciful. If the act has a reasonable relation to the duty of the accused, the question of sanction may arise immediately. The use of the expression, 'official duty' implies that the act or omission must have been done by the public servant in the course of his service and that it should have been in the discharge of his duty. The Section does not extend its protective cover to every act or omission done by a public servant in service but restricts its scope of operation to only those acts or omissions which are done by a public servant in discharge of official duty. The protection given aunder Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is to protect responsible public servants against the institution of possibly vexatious criminal proceedings for offences alleged to have been committed by them, while they are acting or purporting to act as public servants. No straight jacket formula can be devised with respect to the stage of applicability of sanction. However, the same would depend on the facts of each case.
[Para 20]
Section 197—Sanction for prosecution—Requirement—Order of MM rejecting application filed by petitioner for his discharge on ground of not obtaining sanction—Challenged—Complainant filed the complaint against petitioner (the then Tehsildar) and three other government officers under Section 200 of CrPC for offence punishable under Sections 218/466/120B/34 of IPC and Section 13(1)(c) and 13(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act—It can be seen from the reading of the complaint itself that (i) on 21.06.2005 the Revenue Department reached at the spot; (ii) the complainant and his family members were arrested in a criminal case; (iii) all accused persons are alleged to have been prepared an incorrect map; (iv) DC Revenue got prepared the map; (v) there were directions given by this Court to re-demarcate the road—Act of petitioner clearly falls within the scope of Section 197 of CrPC, so as to attract the requirement of obtaining sanction immediately at the time of taking cognizance—There are no allegations specifically against the petitioner so as to isolate him from the other officials discharging their official duty—Order passed by MM suffers from non-application of mind—Complaint rejected for want of sanction with liberty to proceed afresh after obtaining sanction—Petition allowed.
[Paras 25, 27, 28, 34 & 35]
Decision : Petition allowed