Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.34 seconds)
Hari Prakash S/O. V. N. Tripathi vs Shailesh S/O. Harish Kulkarni And ... on 24 February, 2023
cites
Section 244 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 197 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 195 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 204 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 245 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Inspector Of Police & Ors vs Battenapatla Venkata Ratnam & Anr on 13 April, 2015
26. As against this, learned advocate for the complainant, in
support of his contention that in this case Section 197 of the Cr.P.C.
would not be applicable, has relied on the decision in Inspector of
Police and another .vs. Battenapatla Venkata Ratnam and another ,
reported at (2015) 13 SCC 87. In this case, it is held that if the
government officer indulges in commission of the offence punishable
under the law, such as cheating, fabrication of record or
misappropriation, it cannot be said to be in discharge of his official
duty.
Amal Kumar Jha vs State Of Chhatisgarh & Anr on 26 April, 2016
25. The next important question is with regard to absence of
sanction to prosecute the accused persons, being the government
servants. It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate for the
accused that no specific role has been attributed to the accused persons
in the complaint. Learned Senior Advocate submitted that the acts
alleged to have been done by the accused were in discharge of their
official duty. Learned Senior Advocate submitted that the mens rea to
maintain the complaint without sanction has not be established.
Learned Senior Advocate, therefore, submitted that in the facts and
::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2023 04:24:05 :::
24 APL978.18 (J)
circumstances, without obtaining prior sanction, the learned Magistrate
should not have taken cognizance of the offence. Learned Senior
Advocate further pointed out that in fact, the complainant had applied
for sanction, however, he did not get the order. Learned Senior
Advocate submitted that the principle of deemed sanction cannot be
invoked in this case. Learned Senior Advocate, in support of his
submission, has relied on the decision in Amal Kumar Jha .vs. State of
Chhattisgarh and another, reported at (2016) 16 SCC 734. In this
case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that one safe and sure test in
this regard would be to consider if omission or neglect on part of
public servant to commit the act complained of could have made him
answerable for a charge of dereliction of his official duty. It is held that
provision of Section 197 Cr.P.C. is available only when the alleged act
done by a public servant is reasonably connected with discharge of his
official duty and is not merely a cloak for doing objectionable act. It is
further held that if he is doing official duty and if he has acted in excess
of his duty, but there is a reasonable connection between the act and
performance of official duty, excess will not be a sufficient ground to
deprive public servant of protection. It is held that the omission
::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2023 04:24:05 :::
25 APL978.18 (J)
complained of, if found to be intrinsically connected with discharge of
official duty of a public servant, then the protection under Section 197
of Cr.P.C. from prosecution without sanction of the competent
authority, is available to the public servant.