Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

there must be a reasonable connection between the act and the official duty. It does not matter even if the act exceeds what is strictly necessary for the discharge of the duty, as this question will arise only at a later stage when the trial proceeds on the merits. What a court has to find out is whether the act and the official duty are so inter-related that one can postulate reasonably that it was done by the accused in the performance of official duty, though, possibly in excess of the needs and requirements of situation and further discussing in para-6 from Hori Ram Singh supra observed that the question was considered as to whether the protection under Section 197 of the Code can be confined only to such acts of the public servant which are directly in pursuance of his public office, though in excess of the duty or under a mistaken belief as to the existence of such duty, and in para-8 referring to Sreekantiah Ramavva Munipalli supra quoting Hori Ram Singh supra observed that Section 197 of the Code should not be construed in such a narrow way so that the same can never be applied for of course it is no part of an official's duty to commit an offence and never can be. But it is not the duty we have to examine so much as the act, because an official act can be performed in the discharge of official duty as well as in dereliction of it. The section has content and its language must be given meaning." In para-9 referring to Amrik Singh supra held that held Section 197 of Cr.P.C. that if the discharge of official duty and the act of the accused complained of are inseparable, sanction under Section 197 of the Code would be necessary.. In para-12 referring to Sureshkumar Bhikamchand Jain supra referring to earlier expression of Matajog Dobey held the legislative mandate engrafted in subsection (1) of Section 197 debarring a court from taking cognizance of an offence except with previous sanction of the Government concerned, this Court has laid down that he said provision is a prohibition imposed by the statute from taking cognizance and, as such, exercising jurisdiction of the court in the matter of taking cognizance and, therefore, a court will not be justified in taking cognizance of the offence without such sanction on a finding that the acts complained of are in excess of the discharge of the official duty of the government servant concerned. Para-14 to 16 referring to the Constitutional Board expressions of K.Satwanth Singh and also Om Prakash Gupta supra observed that for claiming protection u/sec. 197 Cr.P.C. it has to be shown reasonable connection between the Act, complained of and discharge of official duty. It is well settled that the question of sanction u/sec. 197 of Cr.P.C. can be raised at any time after the cognizance, may be immediately after cognizance or framing of charge or even at the time of conclusion of trial and after conviction as well, any appeal. In Rajib Ranjan Vs. R.Vijakumar two judge Bench at paras 14 to 18, it is observed sanction however is necessary if the offence alleged against the public servant is committed by him after acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties as held in Buddi Kota Subbar Rao Vs.K.Prakasham para-6 the fact or omission on facts found reasonable connection that discharge of his duty by the accused thereby sanction is required that cannot be disputed. In Raghunath Anant Govilkar Vs. State of Maharashtra supra referring to Sreekantaiah and Amrik Singh supra observed if the act complained of is concerned with official duties, sanction would be necessary and therefrom observed if a public servant enters into a criminal conspiracy and indulges in criminal misconduct and misdemeanor, it is not to be treated as an act in discharge of official duty thereby in that case sanction held not necessary. Even from Rajib Ranjan supra, the principle of law laid down of the act complaint of no way connected to the discharge of duties, sanction is imposed is reiterated. In Inspector of Police Vs. Battenapatla Venkateramaiah the three judge Bench expression of the Apex Court referring to Rajib Ranjan supra observed the facts of that case while reiterating the principle of the protection u/sec. 197 given to the public servant is in the public interest and in Subramanian Swamy Vs. Manmohan Singh -it was held that the provisions dealing with sanction u/sec. 197 of Cr.P.C. must be construed in such a manner as to advance the cause of honesty, justice and good governance and the para-74 therein speaks that public servants are treated as a special class of persons enjoying the special protection so that they can perform their duties without fear and favour and without threats of malicious prosecution. Thus even from this Battenapatla Venkata Ratnam supra if it is connected with the discharge of duties even there is excess sanction is required.