Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner stated that the criminal complaint was dismissed by the impugned orders solely on the ground of lack of sanction from the appropriate authority under Section 197 Cr.P.C. He stated that, in facts and circumstances of the present case, such sanctions were not legally required.

3.1 He stated that Respondent No. 1 issued the impugned challan in violation of the Supreme Court's directions in M.C. Mehta (supra), as the challan was issued by an ASI of Traffic Police, however, as per direction ('g') of the said judgment, enforcement of the Court's directions was required to be undertaken by flying squad team headed by an SDM along with an ACP or other higher-ranking officer. Accordingly, it was stated that issuance of the challan by Respondent No.1 was not an act in discharge of 1958 SCC Online SC 79 his official duty and consequently, sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was not required.

9. The Petitioner disputed this finding, contending that Respondent No. 1 and 2 were not acting in discharge of any official duty and, therefore, no sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was required. Additionally, it is stated that the Petitioner had already applied for sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. vide letter dated 08.06.20066 but received no response. The Petitioner contends that this lack of response from the competent authority should be construed as "deemed sanction".

20.1 The Petitioner argues that the absence of a response should be interpreted as deemed sanction. In support of this argument, the Petitioner relies on the Supreme Court's judgment in Subramanian Swamy (Supra), wherein the Court suggested that Parliament should consider implementing a Rule whereby, if no decision on sanction is taken within the stipulated time, sanction should be deemed to have been granted, enabling the prosecuting agency or private complainant to proceed with filing the charge sheet or complaint within 15 days of the expiration of the time limit. 20.2 However, this Court notes that, in law as it stands today, there is no concept of "deemed sanction" under Section 197 Cr.P.C. The observations in the judgment relied upon by the Petitioner is a recommendation to Parliament, which remains a recommendation and has not resulted in a legislative amendment. This has been reiterated by Supreme Court in Suneeti Toteja v. State of U.P. & Anr10 wherein the Court noted the judgment Subramanian Swamy (supra) and held that there is no concept of "deemed sanction" under Section 197 Cr.P.C. as per law as it stands today. The relevant extract of the said judgement reads as under:-

32.3 The learned Trial Court, after taking cognizance, issued summons to the Respondents vide order dated 06.12.2020. Thereafter, an application was filed by the Respondents seeking discharge on the ground that no prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was obtained. The Trial Court, vide the impugned order dated 12.08.2021, allowed the said application and dismissed the complaint by holding that the Respondents were public servants and the acts complained of were performed in discharge of their official duties. Consequently, prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was a necessary pre-condition for taking cognizance, and the Petitioner had failed to place any material on record to show that such sanction was obtained. 32.4 Aggrieved by the order dated 12.08.2021, the Petitioner preferred Criminal Revision Petition No. 07/2022 before the Court of Sessions. The learned ASJ, vide impugned order dated 10.03.2022, upheld the decision of the learned Trial Court and dismissed the Revision Petition. 32.5 Feeling aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Trial Court and the learned ASJ, the Petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. Analysis and Findings