LexANJAN1 KUMAR versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2008] 6 S.C.R. 912 ANJAN1 KUMAR V. STAT"E OF BIHAR AND ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 413 of 2000) APRIL 24, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 482 and 197 - Complaint against public servant - C Criminal proceedings u/ss 465, 466, · 469 and 471 /PC - Petition for quashing of the proceedings - Dismissed by High Court - On appeal, held: Proceedings liable to be quashed - Continuance thereof would amount to abuse of process of law - Interference u/s 482 permissible only in rare cases - Instant D case falls under the category of rare case - The prosecution was without sanction uls. 197 Cr.PC. as the acts for which the accused was charged were performed in discharge of his official duty - In the facts of the case malafide was involved. s. 197 -Applicability- Object and scope of- Held: The E protection under the provision is to protect responsible public servants against possibility of vexatious criminal proceedings - However, the protection does not cover every act or omission of a public servant - It is available only when the alleged act by the public servant is connected with discharge of his official F duty or in purported exercise of his official duty Words and Phrases - "Cognizance" and "Official duty" - Meaning of - In the context of s. 197 Cr PC. Respondent No. 2 filed an application for G cancellation of application form relating to license. Appellant sent a report for cancellation of the same. On the same date, appellant conducted raid at the medial shop of respondent No. 2 and s.eized some medicines. Thereafter on 8.9.1992 appellant filed FIR and a case was H 912 ANJANI KUMAR v. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR. • 913 registered against respondent No. 2 u/ss 420, 467, 468 A IPC and u/ss 27 (b) (ii) and 28 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Appellant informed the authorities as well as Police about the threat received from respondent No. 2. On 4.2.1993 respondent No. 2 filed a complaint against --+ the appellant on the basis whereof FIR was registered u/ B ss 161, 167, 465, 466, 469 and 471 IPC. Thereafter District Magistrate passed the order u/s 196 Cr.P.C. according sanction for prosecution of the appellant. Charge sheet was filed against the appellant u/ss. 465, 466., 469 and 471 IPC. Cognizance was taken. Appellant filed petition c u/s 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the order taking cognizance. High Court dismissed the petition on the ground that no sanction was required. Hence the present appeal. Appellant contended that allegations were made as D -+ a counterblast by respondent No. 2 for the action taken 1 against him; and that since the appellant had acted in the course of his official duty, High Court was wrong in saying that no sanction was required. Allowing the appeal, the Court E HELD: 1.1 The protection given under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is to protect responsible public servants against the institution of possibly vexatious criminal proceedings for offences alleged to have been committed by them while F ... they are acting or purporting to act as public servants . The policy of the legislature is to afford adequate protection to public servants to ensure that they are not prosecuted for anything done by them in the. discharge of their official duties without reasonable cause, and if G sanction is granted, to confer on the Government, if they choose to exercise it, complete control of the prosecution. [Para 11] [921-E, F] 1.2 This protection has certain limits and is available only when the alleged act done by the public servant is H 914 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 6 S.C.R. A reasonably connected with the discharge of his official duty and is not merely a cloak for doing the objectionable act. If in doing his official duty, he acted in excess of his duty, but there is a reasonable connection between the act and the performance of the official duty, the excess B will not be a sufficient ground to deprive the public servant from the protection. The question is not as to the nature of the offence such as whether the alleged offence contained an element necessarily dependent upon the offender being a public servant, but whether it was c committed by a public servant acting or purporting to act as such in the discharge of his official capacity. [Para 11] [921-G, H; 922-A, B] 1.3 Before Section 197 Cr.P.C. can be invoked, it must be shown that the official concerned was accuse
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.