Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.25 seconds)Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
B. Saha And Ors vs M. S. Kochar on 27 July, 1979
In S. B. Saha v. M. S. Kochar the Supreme Court observed that while the question whether an offence was committed in the course of official duty or under colour of office, cannot be answered hypothetically, and depends on the facts of each case, one broad test for this purpose, first deduced by Varadachariar J. of the Federal Court in Hori Ram v. Emperor, 1939 FCR 159 : (1939 (40) Cri LJ 468), is generally applied with advantage and that "test may well be whether the public servant, if challenged, can reasonably claim, that what he does, he does in virtue of his office." Further in paragraph 21 the Supreme Court stated as under :-
P. Arulswami vs The State Of Madras on 29 August, 1966
It is to be noted that in the State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Budhikota Subharao , extracted above, the Supreme Court after reviewing the authorities right from the days of the Federal Court and Privy Council in Arulswami v. State of Madras , extracted principles of law on the requirement of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. The decision in Arulswami v. State of Madras refers to various decisions relied on by the respondent and therefore there is no need to refer to those decisions once again.
State Of Maharashtra vs Dr. Budhikota Subharao on 16 March, 1993
It is to be noted that in the State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Budhikota Subharao , extracted above, the Supreme Court after reviewing the authorities right from the days of the Federal Court and Privy Council in Arulswami v. State of Madras , extracted principles of law on the requirement of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. The decision in Arulswami v. State of Madras refers to various decisions relied on by the respondent and therefore there is no need to refer to those decisions once again.
Om Prakash Gupta vs State Of U. P.(With Connected Appeals) on 11 January, 1957
11. It is true that in Om Prakash Gupta v. State of U.P. . The Supreme Court has observed that quite a large body of case law in all the High Courts has held that a public servant committing criminal breach of trust does not normally act in his capacity as public servant.
Shreekantiah Ramayya Munipalli vs The State Of Bombay(With Connected ... on 22 December, 1954
14. Keeping the above principles in view, it is to be seen whether sanction in the instant case under Section 197(1). Cr.P.C. is necessary. As per the averments in the complaint, the revision petitioner a public servant as Managing Director had the dominion and control over the funds of the society. There was entrustment of the funds and the assets of the respondent-society with the petitioner and there is no dispute about the same. The petitioner after the bill drawn in the name of the Managing Director for Rs. 1,500/- by the lawyer was placed before him after duly processing by the office of the respondent ordered on its reverse "please pay" and in pursuance of that order the payment came to be made. It is therefore obvious that the petitioner passed that order purporting to act in the discharge of his duties and if the order so passed was not under the colour of office, then payment would not have been made. The principles stated in Shreekantiah Ramayya Munipalli v. State of Bombay , apply to the facts on hand.
K. Satwant Singh vs The State Of Punjab(And Connected ... on 28 October, 1959
13. For necessity of sanction under Section 197, Cr.P.C. the act of misappropriation must have been committed in the discharge of or in the purported discharge of the official duty. The act must bear such relation to the duty that the public servant could lay a reasonable but not a pretended or fanciful claim, that he did it in the course of the performance of his duty. See Satwant Singh v. State of Punjab . Whether sanction is required under Section 197(1), will depend upon the facts of each case. If the acts complained of are so integrally connected with the duties attaching to the office as to be inseparable from them, then sanction under S. 197(1), would be necessary, but if there was no necessary connection between them and the performance of those duties, the official status furnishing only the occasion or opportunity for the acts, then no sanction would be required. [See ].
Hori Ram Singh vs King-Emperor on 18 January, 1940
Referring to the principles found in the above decision it is clear that it is not every offence committed by a public servant that requires sanction for prosecution under Section 197(1), of the Cr.P.C. nor even every act done by him while he is actually engaged in the performance of his official duties, but where the act complained of is directly concerned with his official duties, then sanction would be necessary. If an offence is unconnected with the official duty there can be no protection. It is only when it is either within the scope of the official duty or in excess of it that the protection is climbable.