Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.20 seconds)
Supriya Basu vs Babulal Agarwal on 2 July, 1993 cites

Prabhakar V. Sinari vs Shanker Anant Verlekar on 29 November, 1968

6. Another decision of the Supreme Court relied upon by the learned Advocate for the opposite party in this connection is Prabhakar v. Shanker, . There a complaint was filed against a Deputy Superintendent of Police in respect of various alleged offences. The question arose whether sanction under Section 197, Cr. P.C. was necessary. The relevant facts involved in that case are stated hereafter. The complainant reported to the police station that some hawkers (vendors) were attempting to encroach upon his land. Thereupon the police came to the spot and sent the vendors away. An hour later, the accused who identified himself as Deputy Superintendent of Police, came to the spot in civilian dress and threatened the complainant that if he was to interfere with the vendors, he would arrest him. The accused directed the vendors to enter the plot and threatened the complainant that he would slap him on his face, making some gestures of threats of assault with hands. The complainant kept mum and the vendors took possession of the plots. In these circumstances, the Supreme Court held that no sanction under Section 197, Cr. P.C. was necessary. Obviously the Deputy Superintendent of Police in that connection was not acting in dishcarge of his official duty. The facts of the said case are therefore clearly distinguishable from the facts involved in our present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 12 - A N Grover - Full Document

B. Saha And Ors vs M. S. Kochar on 27 July, 1979

In this connection, the learned Advocate for the opposite party attracted my attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in S.B. Saha v. M.S. Kochar, in support of his argument that no sanction under Section 197(1) Cr.P.C. is necessary in this case. In that case the accused persons who were officers of the Customs Department raided the premises of the complainant and seized some imported goods as well as certain other goods. In the case brought against the Customs officers it was alleged that the Customs officers/accused persons had seized the goods and were holding them in trust in the discharge of their official duty, for being dealt with or disposed of in accordance with law, but in dishonest breach of that trust they criminally misappropriated or converted those goods and thereby committed an offence under Section 409 I.P.C. The question that fell for consideration in that case was whether sanction for prosecution under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was necessary. In that context, the Supreme Court observed that the act complained of was dishonest misappropriation or conversion of the goods by the accused persons which they had seized and as such were holding in trust to be dealt with in accordance with law and there could be no dispute that the seizure of the goods by the accused persons and their being thus entrusted with the goods or dominion over them, was an act committed by them while acting in the discharge of their official duty, but the act complained of was subsequent dishonest misappropriation or conversion of those goods by the accused persons and that it could not be said in the context of the facts of the case that the act of dishonest misappropriation or conversion complained of bore such an integral relation to the duty of the accused persons that they could genuinely claim that they had committed it in the course of the performance of their official duty. It was accordingly held that no sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was necessary. Obviously the facts of that case are distinguishable from the facts of our present case. There the alleged misappropriation or conversion could not have been in any way connected with any justification under cover of discharge of official duty. But here in our present case the detention of the vehicle was directly related to the discharge of the official duties of the petitioner coming within the ambit of Section 7 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954 which authorises the petitioner to intercept, detain and search any road vehicle and also to seize any notified commodities as referred to in Section 6.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 307 - R S Sarkaria - Full Document
1