NCLAT: Can’t Dismiss Restoration App. if Filed in 30 Days from Date of Dismissal of Original App.  ||  Delhi HC: Communication between Parties through Whatsapp Constitute Valid Agreement  ||  Delhi HC Seeks Response from Govt. Over Penalties on Petrol Pumps Supplying Fuel to Old Vehicles  ||  Centre Notifies "Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Rules, 2025"  ||  Del. HC: Can’t Reject TM Owner’s Claim Merely because Defendant Could have Sought Removal of Mark  ||  Bombay HC: Cannot Treat Sole Director of OPC, Parallelly with Separate Legal Entity  ||  Delhi HC: Can Apply 'Family of Marks' Concept to Injunct Specific Marks  ||  HP HC: Can’t Set Aside Ex-Parte Decree for Mere Irregularity  ||  Cal. HC: Order by HC Bench Not Conferred With Determination by Roster is Void  ||  Calcutta HC: Purchase Order Including Arbitration Agreement to Prevail Over Tax Invoice Lacking it    

Noorulla Khan vs. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and Anr. - (Supreme Court) (13 Jul 2021)

Protection under Section 197 of the CrPC is not be available to public servant prosecuted under Section 48 of Water Act

MANU/SC/0454/2021

Criminal

Present appeal challenges the order passed by the High Court. Sandur Gram Panchayat, Sandur, Karnataka and the Appellant, who at the relevant time was Chief Officer of said Gram Panchayat, were accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 43 and 44 of The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (“the Water Act”).

The appeal preferred by the Appellant was allowed only on the ground that, being a public servant, the Appellant was entitled to the protection under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and in the absence of requisite sanction, his prosecution was invalid. The original complainant (Karnataka State Pollution Control Board) being aggrieved, filed before the High Court. By its judgment, the High Court set-aside the view taken by the lower Appellate Court.

If the violation of the provisions of the Water Act was at the hands of a Department, subject to the satisfaction of the requirements under Section 48 of the Water Act, “the Head of the Department” would be deemed to be guilty. This would be subject to the defences which are available to him to establish whether the offence in question was committed without his knowledge or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. By virtue of the decision of this Court in V.C. Chinappa Goudar v. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board & Another, because of deeming fiction under Section 48 of the Water Act, the protection under Section 197 of the CrPC would not be available and the matter ought to be considered de hors such protection.

If the concerned public servant happens to be a Chief Officer or Commissioner of a Municipal Council or Town Panchayat, he cannot strictly be called “the Head of the Department of the Government”. Therefore, in terms of decision of this Court in Karnataka State Pollution Control Board v. B. Heera Naik, the matter would not come under Section 48 of the Water Act. But the matter would come directly under Section 47 of the Water Act. According to said decision, even in such cases, the deeming fiction available under Section 47 of the Water Act would dis-entitle the public servant from the protection under Section 197 of the CrPC.

If the offenders are other than public servants or where the principal offenders are corporate entities in private sectors, the question of protection under Section 197 would not arise of CrPC. The High Court was, therefore, right and justified in setting-aside the decision of the lower Appellate Court, which was purely based on the issue of the applicability of Section 197 of the CrPC. The High Court rightly remitted the matter to the lower Appellate Court to be considered afresh on merits. Appeal dismissed.

Tags : PUBLIC SERVANTS   APPLICABILITY   PROVISION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved