Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. As against the cases relied on by Mr. Jethmalani, there are several other cases which clearly show that protection under Section 197. Cr. P. C. cannot be claimed unless the impugned act falls within the scope of the duties attached to the office of the said public servant. In , H.H.B. Gill v. King and in AIR 1954 SC 455, Ronald v. State of West Bengal as also in , State of Maharashtra v. Narhar Rao and it has been held that a public servant does not act in the discharge or purported discharge of his official duty when he accepts bribe for showing some favour to the person offering the bribe. In it is held that a Government servant does not act in the. discharge or purported discharge of his official duty when he abets the offence of cheating by the contractor by certifying his false bills as true. In the judgment of this Court in Parbat Gopal v. Dinkar and approved by the Supreme Court in , it has been held that a Government servant engaged for driving a police jeep does not act or purport to act in the discharge of his duties when he drives the said jeep rashly and negligently and causes injuries to pedestrians, even though at the relevant time he is carrying the police officers, on duty in the jeep. Very recently, in . Arulswami v. State of Madras the Supreme Court has held that a public servant does not act in the discharge of his duty when he commits criminal breach of trust in regard to public funds. In cases , State of Andhra Pradesh v. Venugopal and AIR 1966 SC 1786, State of Maharashtra v. Atma Ram it is held that a police officer does not act in the discharge or purported discharge of his duty when he assaults the accused in his custody during the course of investigation and as such he is not entitled to the protection under Section 161 of the Bombay Police Act or the corresponding Section 53 of the Madras Police Act.