TP Chandrasekharan Case | Sanction U/S 197 CrPC Not Required For Court To Take Action Against Public Servant For Perjury: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has held that prosecution for perjury can be maintained against a public servant without obtaining prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC, adding that as offences enumerated under Section 195 CrPC are intricately connected with the administration of justice, it is imperative that they be determined by the courts itself.

Section 197 CrPC bars prosecution of public servants for acts committed in the discharge of his official duty, except with the previous sanction of the government.

Section 195 CrPC on the other hand bars prosecution for offences against public justice (example Section 195 IPC which relates to giving or fabricating false evidence) except on a complaint in writing of the court, in relation to a judicial proceeding of which court the offence is alleged to have been committed.

A division bench of Justice AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Kauser Edappagath was dealing with an appeal preferred by a convict in the TP Chandrasekharan murder case, accusing three investigating officers of giving false evidence before the trial court with the intention to procure conviction.

Appellant's plea was dismissed by the trial court without issuing notice on the ground that application is not maintainable for want of sanction under Section 197 of CrPC.

Thus, the question before the High Court was whether prosecution for perjury can be maintained against a public servant under Section 340 r/w 195 of CrPC unless prior sanction under Section 197 of CrPC is obtained?

At the outset, the division bench observed that Sections 195 and 340 of CrPC provide protection to persons from prosecutions on insufficient grounds and ensure that there shall be prosecution only when the Court, after due consideration, is satisfied that there is a proper case to put a party to trial.

Thus, it observed,

"Since the court makes the complaint regarding the commission of an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b) of Cr.P.C, after holding a preliminary enquiry and forming an opinion by applying its judicial mind that it is expedient in the interest of justice that enquiry should be made into any such offences, a further sanction under Section 197 of Cr. P.C, in case the offender is a public servant, is neither desirable nor contemplated."

It said insisting on sanction in such cases would create an anomalous situation where the executive acting in its administrative capacity would be able to sit over the decision made by the court in a judicial proceeding. It would also run counter to the scheme of independence of the judiciary and separation of powers envisaged under the Constitution, it added.

Accordingly, it remanded the matter back to the trial court.

Case Number: Crl A No. 892 of 2014

Case Title: KK Krishnan v. State of Kerala & ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 131

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocates K Viswan and Arun Bose

Counsel for Respondents: Advocates P Kumarankutty (Spl. PP), John Sebastien Ralph, Saphal K (Asst. Spl. PP), Vishnu Chandran, Ralph Reti John, Appu Babu, Shifna Muhammed Shukkur, Giridhar Krishna Kumar, Vishnumaya MB, Geethu TA and Apoorva Ramkumar

Click here to read/download the order