9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The judgment deals with the requirement of sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) for prosecuting a public servant accused of committing offences while acting in the discharge of official duties. Summary: Issue 1: Requirement of Sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. The appellant filed a private complaint against the second respondent, a government servant, for various offences including misappropriation. The Magistrate dismissed the complaint citing lack of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. The High Court upheld this decision, emphasizing the need for sanction when the alleged offence is related to the discharge of official duties. The Supreme Court clarified that the protection of sanction is crucial for public servants acting in the course of their official duties to prevent needless harassment or prosecution. However, the Court noted that the fabrication of records or misappropriation of funds by a public servant does not constitute acts done in discharge of official duties. The judgment emphasized that the crime and official duty must be integrally connected for the protection under Section 197 to apply. Issue 2: Interpretation of Official Duties The Court addressed the argument that the respondent's actions were not part of his official duties, as it was the duty of the cashier to handle record preparation and payments. The Court did not delve into the merits of the case but focused on the necessity of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. The judgment allowed the appeal, setting aside the Magistrate's order and directing further proceedings in accordance with the law. In conclusion, the Supreme Court clarified the requirement of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. for prosecuting public servants accused of offences related to their official duties, emphasizing the need for an integral connection between the alleged crime and official duty.
|
