Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. This Court has considered the scope of Section 197 CrPC in its recent order dated 24.9.2015, passed in Misc.Cri.Case No. 1084/2010 (Akhilesh Kumar Jha vs. State of MP). This Court opined as under :-

"The Apex Court in catena of decisions has considered the language employed in Sec. 197, CrPC. In (2009) 6 SCC 372 (State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Paras Nath Singh), the Apex Court opined that So far as public servants are concerned the cognizance of any offence, by any court, is barred by Section 197, CrPC, unless sanction is obtained from the appropriate authority, if the offence, alleged to have been committed, was in discharge of the official duty. The Section not only specifies the persons to whom the protection is afforded but it also specifies the conditions and circumstances in which it shall be available and the effect in law if the conditions are satisfied. The mandatory character of the protection afforded to a public servant is brought out by the expression, 'no court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction'. Use of the words, 'no' and 'shall' make it abundantly clear that the bar on the exercise of power of the court to take cognizance of any offence is absolute and complete. Very cognizance is barred. That is the complaint cannot be taken notice of. According to Black's law Dictionary the word 'cognizance' means 'Jurisdiction' or 'the exercise of jurisdiction' or 'power to try and determine causes'. In common parlance it means taking notice of. A court, therefore, is precluded from entertaining a complaint or taking notice of it or exercising jurisdiction if it is in respect of a public servant who is accused of an offence alleged to have committed during discharge of his official duty. The judgment of Paras Nath Singh (supra) was recently considered by Supreme Court in (2013) 10 SCC 705 (Anil Kumar and others vs. M.K.Aiyappa and another). It is held that as per the judgment of Paras Nath Singh (supra), State of W.B. vs. Mohd. Khalid [(1995) 1 SCC 684] and Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh [(2012) 3 SCC 64], it is clear that the word "cognizance" has a wider connotation and is not merely confined to the stage of taking cognizance of the offence. Cognizance is taken at the initial stage when the Magistrate applies his judicial mind to the facts mentioned in a complaint or to a police report or upon information received from any other person that an offence has been committed. The issuance of process is at a subsequent stage when after considering the material placed before it the court decides to proceed against the offenders against whom a prima facie case is made out. In Anil Kumar (supra), the Apex Court also considered the judgment of Army Headquarters v. CBI [(2012) 6 SCC 228]. The law on the issue of sanction was summarised to the effect that the question of sanction is of paramount importance for protecting a public servant who has acted in good faith while performing his duty. In order that the public servant may not be unnecessarily harassed on a complaint of an unscrupulous person, it is obligatory on the part of the executive authority to protect him. The Apex Court recognised the right of public servant to raise the issue of jurisdiction when court proceeds without sanction. In Anil Kumar (supra), the complaint filed under Section 200, CrPC, was entertained without there being any sanction under Section 197, CrPC. The Government servant filed writ petition before the High Court. The High Court took the view that Special Judge could not have taken notice of private complaint unless the same was accompanied by a sanction order, irrespective of whether the court was acting at a pre-cognizance stage or the post-cognizance stage, if the complaint pertains to a public servant, who is alleged to have committed the offence in discharge of his official duties. The High Court for the said reasons quashed the order passed by the Special Judge as well as the complaint filed by the complainant. The High Court's order is affirmed by Supreme Court in Anil Kumar (supra).