Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"10. Public servants have, in fact, been treated as a special category under Section 197 CrPC, to protect them from malicious or vexatious prosecution. Such protection from harassment is given in public interest; the same cannot be treated as a shield to protect corrupt officials. In Subramanian Swamy Vs Manmohan Singh, (2012) 3 SCC 64, at para 74, it has been held that the provisions dealing with Section 197 CrPC must be construed in such a manner as to advance the cause of honesty, justice and good governance. To quote:

17) Having gone through the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the judgments (supra), the ratio laid down in Labh Singh's case is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Rather the ratio laid down in Battenapatla Venkata Ratnam's case is fully applicable in the context of present case. The judgments (supra) were delivered by Hon'ble Apex Court placing reliance on Subramanian Swamy's case (supra), wherein it has been held that the protection of sanction provided under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is procedural provision. Therefore, the procedural provisions relating to sanction must be construed in such a manner as to advance the causes of honesty and justice and good governance as opposed to escalation of corruption.

18) This Court is in conformity with the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment (supra) that the technicalities should not come in the way of dispensation of justice. The ratio of judgment laid down in Subramanian Swamy (supra) and Battenapatla Venkata Ratnam (supra) are fully applicable in the context of present case. Thus, it is held that sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is not required to prosecute the revisionist.

19) It is pertinent to mention here at the cost of repetition that though directions were issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court to this Court to re-hear the matter in regard to the allegations made in the charge sheet relating to the contract matter and to adjudicate the matter afresh on the aspect of framing of charge / discharge based on the material on record collected in both the charge sheets, but it is equally true that the revisionist has not raised any plea before this Court that the court below has framed charges without there being any evidence against the revisionist, therefore, the revisionist is liable to be discharged. However, considering the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is again adjudicating the matter on the aspect of framing of charge / discharge, on merit.