P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

Indra Devi vs. The State Of Rajasthan - (Supreme Court) (23 Jul 2021)

Sanction under Section 197 of CrPC is required to prosecute public servants, if alleged act committed is directly concerned with official duty

MANU/SC/0472/2021

Criminal

The Appellant, is the complainant in FIR registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 3(1)(4), 3(15), 3(5) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The High Court had opined that, sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) was required before triggering any prosecution against the Station House Officer to file an FIR and for other criminal acts committed during the discharge of his duties. The complainant, aggrieved by the said judgment, has approached this Court by filing a special leave petition. The question, therefore, is whether the act committed is directly concerned with the official duty.

The Appellant submitted that, the involvement of Respondent No.2 only came to light during investigation. He had failed to bring the irregularities to the knowledge of his superiors which was instrumental in issuing the forged lease. Thus, he had conspired with his superiors in dishonestly concealing the forgery, and intentionally omitting mentioning the date of the proceedings on the order sheet. Such action of forging documents would not be considered as an act conducted in the course of his official duties and, thus Section 197 of the CrPC would not give protection to Respondent No.2.

Section 197 of the CrPC seeks to protect an officer from unnecessary harassment, who is accused of an offence committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties and, thus, prohibits the Court from taking cognisance of such offence except with the previous sanction of the competent authority. Public servants have been treated as a special category in order to protect them from malicious or vexatious prosecution. At the same time, the shield cannot protect corrupt officers and the provisions must be construed in such a manner as to advance the cause of honesty, justice and good governance. The yardstick to be followed is to form a prima facie view whether the act of omission for which the accused was charged had a reasonable connection with the discharge of his duties.

The factum of Respondent No.2 not being named in the FIR is not of much significance as the alleged role came to light later on. However, what is of significance is the role assigned to him in the alleged infraction, i.e. conspiring with his superiors. The work which was assigned to Respondent No.2 pertained to the subject matter of allotment, regularisation, conversion of agricultural land and fell within his domain of work. In the processing of application of Megharam, the file was initially put up to the Executive Officer who directed the inspection and the inspection was carried out by the Junior Engineer and only thereafter the Municipal Commissioner signed the file. The result is that, the superior 5 officers, who have dealt with the file, have been granted protection while the clerk, who did the paper work, i.e. Respondent No.2, has been denied similar protection by the trial Court even though the allegation is of really conspiring with his superior officers.

Present Court is not able to appreciate why a similar protection ought not to be granted to Respondent No.2 as was done in the case of the other two officials by the Trial Court and High Court respectively. Appeals dismissed.

Tags : COGNIZANCE   OFFICIAL DUTY   SANCTION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved