9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Stage at which the accused can raise the plea of applicability of Section 197 of the CrPC. 2. Whether the appellant was discharging his official duty when he ordered the opening of fire, thereby attracting the provisions of Section 197 of the CrPC. Summary: Issue 1: Stage for Raising Plea of Section 197 CrPC Applicability The Court examined whether the plea regarding the applicability of Section 197 of the CrPC can be raised immediately after cognizance is taken and process is issued or only at the stage of framing of charge. The Court clarified that the legislative mandate in Section 197(1) CrPC prohibits the Court from taking cognizance of an offence without the previous sanction of the competent authority if the offence is alleged to have been committed by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty. This prohibition touches the jurisdiction of the Magistrate in taking cognizance, and thus, there is no requirement for the accused to wait until the charges are framed to raise this plea. The Court referred to several precedents, including Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain v. Pandey Ajay Bhushan and Ors. and Ashok Sahu v. Gokul Saikia and Anr., to support this view. Consequently, the decision in Birendra K. Singh's case was overruled, as it incorrectly stated that the objection regarding sanction could only be raised at the stage of framing of charge. Issue 2: Discharge of Official Duty and Applicability of Section 197 CrPC The Court considered whether the appellant was discharging his official duty when he ordered the opening of fire to control the mob, resulting in a death and injuries. The Court referred to the Constitution Bench decision in Matajog Dobey v. H.C. Bhari, which established that there must be a reasonable connection between the act and the discharge of official duty for Section 197 CrPC to apply. The Court found that the appellant, acting under the orders of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, was present with the police force to remove the encroachment and ordered the firing in the course of his duty to control the mob. Thus, the act had a reasonable nexus with his official duty. The Court concluded that the provisions of Section 197(1) CrPC applied to the facts of the case, and since there was no prior sanction, the cognizance taken by the Magistrate was invalid. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, and the criminal proceedings against the appellant were quashed, as the cognizance taken without the required sanction was deemed an abuse of the process of the Court.
|
