DR. LAKSHMANSINGH HIMATSINGH VAGHELE versus NARESH KUMAR CHANDRASHANKAR JHA AND ANR.

Citation: [1990] 3 S.C.R. 511 · Decided: 24-07-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.K. THOMMEN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

\ 
DR. LAKSHMANSINGH HIMATSINGH VAGHELE 
v. 
NARESH KUMAR CHANDRASHANKAR JHA AND ANR. 
JULY 24, 1990 
[T.K. THOMMEN. KULDIP SINGH AND 
M. FATHIMA BEEVI, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973-Section 197-Sanction to 
prosecute-When necessary for-'Pub/ic servant'-'Pub/ic analyst'-
Sanction to prosecute-Whether necessary. 
The appellant, an employee of the Municipal Corporation 
Ahmedabad was holding the post of Laboratory Officer and while he was 
so holding the post, he by a Notification dated 21.12.1966, issued b) the 
State Government, was appointed as a Public Analyst for the local area 
within the municipal limits of the Corporation. The respondent filed a 
complaint before the Magistrate for offences punishable under Sec-
tions 465, 468 and 201, I.P.C. alleged to have been committed by the 
appellant while exercising his functions as a Public Analyst. The appel-
lant moved the High Court under Section 482, for quashing the criminal 
proceedings sought to be initiated against him by the said complaint. 
His principle contention was that he being a public serv11nt removable 
from office only by the State Government, the magistrate could not take 
cognizance of the alleged offences and that previous sanction of the 
State Government as contemplated under section 197, Cr.P.C. was 
necessary. The High Court rejected the contention of the appellant and 
dismissed the petition. He has filed this appeal after obtaining special 
leave from the Court. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: The privilege or immunity from prosecution without sanc-
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
tion extends only when the accused is a public servant of the kind 
mentioned in Section 197, Cr.P.C. He must be a public servent as 
defined in Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code and not removable from 
G 
his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government or the 
Central Government as the-case may be. The offence must also be one 
committed by the accused while acting or purporting to act in the dis-
charge of his official duty. Section 197, Cr .P.C. clearly intends to draw 
a line between public servants and to provide that only in the case of the 
higher ranks should the sanction of the Government to their prosecu-
H 
lion be necessary. [513C-D, H] 
511 
512 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
The words "removable from office" occurring in Section 197 
signify removal from the office one is holding. [SI4B] 
In the instant case, the appellant was not holding any public 
office in connection with the affairs of the State. The State Govermnent 
8 
had merely entrusted him with the functions of a Public Analyst which 
could be granted and taken by an administrative Act. It was on account 
of his being employed by the Municipal Corporation that he was 
appointed as a Public Analyst in the cadre against any post. The Pre-
vention of Food Adulteration Act also does not contain any deeming 
provision to treat the Public Analyst as a public servant. [S!~D-E] 
C 
The appellant is not therefore a public servant removable only by 
the State Government. [514G] 
; 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal /-
No. 387 of 1990. 
D 
E 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.1.1984 of the Gujarat 
High Court at Ahmedabad in Misc. Crl. Application No. 48 of 1982. 
S.H. Sheth and S.C. Patel for the Appellant. 
B. Datta, Sunil Dogra and P.H. Parekh for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
FATHIMA BEEVI, J. Leave granted. 
The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court 
holding that sanction of the State Government as required under 
Section 197, Cr.P.C., is not necessary for taking cognizance of the 
offences against the appellant on the basis of the complaint filed by the 
respondent. The appellant is an employee of the Municipal Corpora-
tion, Ahmedabad. While holding the post of Laboratory Officer, the 
G 
State Government by a Notification dated 21.12.1966 under Section 8 
of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 appointed the appellant as a Public 
Analyst for the local area comprised within the limits of the Corpora-
tion. The complaint was filed by the respondent before the Magistrate 
for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468 and 201,- LP.C., 
alleged to have been committed by the appellant while exercising the 
H 
functions as Public Analyst, 
L.H. VAGHELE v. N.K. CHANDRASHANKAR [FATHIMA BEEVI,J.] 
513 
The appellant moved the High Court under Section 482, 
\ 
Cr.P.C., for quashing ·the criminal 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.