Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.23 seconds)Section 196 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Bhagwan Prasad Srivastava vs N. P. Misra on 20 April, 1970
It is not the duty which requires examination so much as the 'act' because the official act can be performed both in the discharge of the official duty as wall as in dereliction of it. (See Bhagwan Prasad Srivastava v. N.P. Misra : AIR 1970 SC 1661). The baste requirement of Section 197, therefore, is that the delinquent. officer must be discharging an official duty and the act complained of was a part thereof and, therefore had close nexus or link with the same. What has to be found out by the Court is whether the act and the official duty are so inter-related that one can postulate reasonably that it was done by the accused in the performance of the official duty, though possibly in excess of the needs and requirements of the situation."
Bakhshish Singh Brar vs Smt. Gurmej Kaur And Anr on 12 October, 1987
I may in this context refer to the decision of the apex Court in the case of Bakhshish Singh Brar v. Smt. Gurmej Kaur : AIR 1988 SC 257, wherein the apex . Court while emphasizing on the balance between protection of public officers and protection of private citizens observed as follows :
P. Arulswami vs The State Of Madras on 29 August, 1966
(Quoted from placitum)
This aspect makes it clear that the concept of Section 197 does not get immediately attracted on institution of the complaint case. At this juncture, I may refer to the decision in the case of P. Arulswami v. State of Madras : AIR 1967 SC 776, wherein the apex Court heled as under :
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Abani Ch. Biswal vs State Of Orissa And Anr. on 4 September, 1987
6. Before 1 address myself with regard to the sustainability of the order it is worthwhile to analyse the requirement of sanction as enjoined under Section 197 of the Code. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Abani Ch. Biswal v. State of Orissa and Anr.; 64 (1987) CLT 659 dealt at length with regard to the concept of sanction under Section 197 of the Code. Chief Justice H. L. Agarwal speaking for the Court held as follows :
Section 202 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Balbir Singh Delhi Admn. Delhi vs D.N. Kadian, M.M. Delhi & Anr. D.N. ... on 10 December, 1985
Again in the said decision after referring to the decision in the case of Balbir Singh v. D.W. Kadian : AIR 1986 SC 345 it has been held as under :
Bishnu Prasad Mohapatra vs Harihar Patnaik on 13 December, 1991
"Section 197 is intended as a protection against malicious or vexatious prosecution of certain categories of official or authorities. It is not an absolute requirement in law that wherever any of the named categories or officers are proceeded against, sanction under Section 197 is a must. It is no part of the requirement of law to set any of them above the common Saw. If he commits an offence, he has no peculiar privilege. It is only when one of his official acts is alleged to be an offence, the State will not allow him to be prosecuted without its sanction. Section 197 embodies one of the exceptions to the general rule laid down in Section 197 that cognizance of any offence may be taken by the Magistrates enumerated therein. The privilege of immunity from prosecution would sanction is only extended to acts which can be shown to have been done in the discharge of official duty, or in purported exercise of such power. The use of the expression 'while acting' determines the nature of the act complained of An offence arising out of official position but not purported to be a part thereof does not require any sanction under Section 197. There is no scope for either narrow or wide construction of the Section.
1