New Delhi: The Supreme Court Wednesday said that Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which deals with prosecution of judges and public servants, does not extend its protective cover to every act or omission of a public servant while in service.
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan said: "This court has been consistent in holding that Section 197 Cr.PC does not extend its protective cover to every act or omission of a public servant while in service. It is restricted to only those acts or omissions which are done by public servants in the discharge of official duties".
As per sub section (1) of Section 197 where any person who is or was a judge or magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no court shall take cognisance of such offence except with the previous sanction of the Centre or the state government, as the case may be.
The bench said the ambit, scope and effect of Section 197 Cr.PC has received considerable attention of the apex court. "It is not necessary to advert to and dilate on all such decisions. Suffice it to say that the object of such sanction for prosecution is to protect a public servant discharging official duties and functions from undue harassment by initiation of frivolous criminal proceedings," the bench noted.
The top court set aside an order of the Karnataka High Court which had quashed a criminal complaint and a charge sheet filed against a government official.
The apex court's judgment came on an appeal filed by the complainant challenging the November 2020 order of the High Court which had held that since sanction to prosecute the accused, who was working as a village accountant, was denied, his prosecution for criminal offences cannot continue. The High Court had quashed the complaint as well as the charge sheet filed in the case.
The apex court said: “We are of the unhesitant view that the High Court had erred in quashing the complaint as well as the chargesheet in its entirety".
In December 2016, the complainant had lodged an FIR alleging that the public servant, along with others, was creating property documents in the name of people who had died despite knowing that those were forged for illegal gain. A charge sheet was filed against three people.
- " class="align-text-top noRightClick twitterSection" data="">
Read more:
