[JUDGEMENT] Sanction U/S 197 CrPC Required To Prosecute Public Servant Accused Of Committing Offence While Discharging Official Duties: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court in its judgement dated July 23, 2021 has observed that sanction from competent authority is required under Section 197, CrPC take cognisance against a public servant who is accused of committing an offence while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties.

Bench of Justice SK Kaul and Justice Hemant Gupta observed that Section 197 seeks to protect an officer from unnecessary harassment, who is accused of an offence committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties and, thus, prohibits the court from taking cognisance of such offence except with the previous sanction of the competent authority.

“The yardstick to be followed is to form a prima facie view whether the act of omission for which the accused was charged had a reasonable connection with the discharge of his duties,” Court said.

The appellant (Indra Devi) on February 23, 2011 had registered a FIR under section 420/467/468/471/120B of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(4)/3(15)/3(5) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It was alleged in the complaint that she and her husband purchased two plots and sold one of the plots to Megharam and another to Chetan Chaudhary.

In the plot which was purchased in the name of her husband, a residential house and shops was stated to have been made and Megharam allegedly tampered and fabricated the agreement with the intention to defraud. He did the same in collusion with the then executive officer of the Municipality and other concerned clerks by enlarging the dimensions of the plot sold to him with the intention to grab the land and house occupied by the complainant and her husband. The Khasra number was also alleged to have been changed from 1179/03 to 1143/04.

A charge sheet was filed in pursuance of the investigation and charges were framed against Megharam. Yogesh Acharya (Respondent No 2) was not named in the chargesheet but a reference was made to Megharam acting in collusion with “co-accused persons”.

Yogesh Acharya moved an application under Section 197 of the CrPC before the trial court stating that he was a public servant and what he did in respect of allotment of lease, that was executed in favour of Megharam, was done during the course of his official duty and thus he was entitled to protection under the aforementioned provision. He also sought to assail the chargesheet as the same had been filed without obtaining sanction of the competent authority under Section 197 of the CrPC.

On August 10, 2017, the Trial Court while opining that it was Acharya’s duty to to bring irregularities to the knowledge of the competent officers dismissed the applications.

Acharya approached the High Court of Judicature at Jodhpur under section 482 CrPC and the Court on October 3, 2017 allowed the plea. The Court opined that sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC was required before triggering any prosecution against the Station House Officer for filing/failing to file an FIR and for other criminal acts committed during the discharge of his duties.

Aggrieved by the High Court order, the complainant approached the Court.

While emphasising on the reason as to why section 197 of CrPC, 1973 was enacted, the Court said although public servants have been treated as a special category to protect them from malicious or vexatious prosecution but at the same time, the shield cannot protect corrupt officers and the provisions must be construed in such a manner as to advance the cause of honesty, justice and good governance.

The Court observed that although the alleged indulgence of the officers in cheating, fabrication of records or misappropriation could not be said to be in discharge of the official duty, however sanction was necessary if the alleged offence against the public servant was committed by him “while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty”.

The bench while taking into consideration the fact that while the Superior who dealt with the file was granted protection whereas the clerk who did the paperwork was denied similar protection by the Trial Court even though the allegation was of conspiring with his superior officers upheld the High Court’s order and dismissed the appeals.

Case Title: Indira Devi v. State of Rajasthan and Anr