Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.34 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Amal Kumar Jha vs State Of Chhatisgarh & Anr on 26 April, 2016
12. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on the decision in the
case of Amal Kumar Jha vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another, AIR
2016 SC 2082, in which, the Incharge of the Primary Health Centre
did not provide ambulance for shifting the patient from the District
Hospital, whereas he himself travelled in Government Jeep to District
Headquarter to attend a meeting. It was an act or omission in discharge
of official duty, therefore, the sanction to prosecute him under section
304-A of the Indian Penal Code is necessary. No previous sanction
was obtained. Hence, the discharge of the appellant cannot be
disturbed.
Digvijay Singh And Ors. vs Arvind Singh Bhadoriya on 4 September, 2000
In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner has also
placed reliance on the decision in the case of Digvijay Singh and
others vs. Arvind Singh Bhadoriya, 2000 (4) MPHT 474 wherein it
has been held that the respondent/complainant was slapped by the
sh
Town Inspector (petitioner)). Consequently, his left ear drum was torn.
Ajoy Acharya vs State Bureau Of Inv.Against ... on 17 September, 2013
14. Arguments have also been advanced by learned counsel for the
ad
petitioner relying upon the decision in the case of Ajoy Acharya vs.
M
State Bureau of Investigation Against Economic Offences, (2013) 16
SCC 728, in which, the accused was an IAS Officer holding the office
of
of Industry Commissioner. It was alleged that he was participating in
the Board (MPSIDC) meeting which led to passing of a controversial
rt
resolution that was contrary to the decision taken in the earlier
ou
meeting, in which he was a party. The grievance raised was that Court
C
has taken cognizance without sanction from any competent authority.
h
Therefore, the Apex Court has held that the appellant was participating
ig
in the meeting of Board of Directors of MPSIDC on account of his
H
nomination as Direction and had no nexus to the other two posts held
by him. Even sanction of Governor was not required in the present
case for filing of charge-sheet in 2007 as the appellant had
relinquished the charge of office of nominee Director.
Choudhury Parveen Sultana vs State Of West Bengal & Anr on 7 January, 2009
In the case of Choudhury Praveen Sultana vs. State of West
Bengal and another [Criminal Appeal No.8 of 2009 decided on
07.1.2009] wherein the Supreme Court has held that offence
complained of cannot be said to be a part of his duty of the
Investigating Officer, while investigating an offence alleged to have
sh
been committed. It was not part of his duties to threaten the
e
complainant or her husband to withdraw the complaint. In order to
ad
apply the bar of Section 197 Cr.P.C. Each case has to be considered in
Pr
its own fact situation in order to arrive at a finding as to whether the
protection of Section 197 Cr.P.C. could be given to the public servant.
Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
B. Saha And Ors vs M. S. Kochar on 27 July, 1979
In case of B.Shah vs. M.S.Kochar, AIR 1979 SC 1841 the Apex
ig
Court while dealing with the protection under section 197 of the Code
H
of Criminal Procedure has opined that while one hand, it is not every
offence committed by a public servant while engaged in the
performance of his official duty, which is entitled to the protection of
Section 197(1), an act constituting an offence, directly and reasonably
connected with his official duty will require sanction for prosecution
under the said provision. It is the quality of the act that is important,
and if it falls within the scope and range of his official duties, the
protection contemplated by section 197 Cr.P.C. will be attracted.
D T Virupakshappa vs C Subash on 27 April, 2015
11. On behalf of the petitioner reliance has also been placed on the
h
case of D.T.Virupakshappa vs. C.Subhash, AIR 2015 SC 2022, in
ig
which, the complainant was assaulted when detained in the Police
H
custody. Allegedly, the offence committed was reasonably connected
with the performance of the official duty of the appellant. Therefore,
previous sanction for prosecution was held necessary.