Sanction U/S 197 CrPC Required To Prosecute Public Servants If Alleged Act Committed Is Directly Concerned With Official Duty: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that sanction from competent authorities under Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure is required to prosecute public servants if the alleged act committed is directly concerned with the official duty.

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 bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hemant Gupta observed.

The court observed thus while dismissing an appeal against a Rajasthan High Court judgment which allowed a petition filed by a accused - public servant under Section 482 of the CrPC and held that sanction under Section 197 CrPC was necessary.

The case against the accused was that he had conspired with his superiors who issued a forged lease. The complainant and the State assailed the High Court order contending that the 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 the accused.

9. We have given our thought to the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 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. [See Subramanian Swamy Vs. Manmohan Singh]. The alleged indulgence of the officers in cheating, fabrication of records or misappropriation cannot be said to be in discharge of their official duty. However, such sanction is necessary if the offence alleged against the public servant is committed by him "while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty" and in order to find out whether the alleged offence is committed "while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty", 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. [See State of Maharashtra Vs. Dr. Budhikota Subbarao]  . The real question, therefore, is whether the act committed is directly concerned with the official duty.", the bench observed.

The court noted that the  role assigned to the public servant is conspiring with his two superiors who were granted protection under Section 197 CrPC. Neither the State nor the complainant appealed against the protection granted under Section 197 of the CrPC qua these two other officers.

"We are, thus, 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. The sanction from competent authority would be required to take cognisance and no sanction had been obtained in respect of any of the officers. It is in view thereof that in respect of the other two officers, the proceedings were quashed and that is what the High Court has directed in the present case as well.", the court said while dismissing the appeal.

Senior Advocate Manoj Swarup appeared for the appellant.

Case: Indra Devi vs. State of Rajasthan [CrA 593 OF 2021]

Coram: Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hemant Gupta

Citation: LL 2021 SC 318

Click here to Read/Download Judgment