GAURISHANKARPRASAD versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.

Citation: [2000] 3 S.C.R. 159 · Decided: 19-04-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

);-
GAURISHANKARPRASAD 
A 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR. 
--. 
APRIL 19, 2000 
[K.T. THOMAS AND D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.] 
B 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 197-Sanction for prosecu-
tion of Judges and Public Servants-No court shall take congnizance of any 
offence alleged to have been committed by public servant acting or purporting 
to act in the discharge of his official duty-Previous sanction of the Central c 
Government or Stqte Government required-Offence committed to have rea-
sonable and rational nexus with the official duties required to be discharged-
Appellant, a Sub-Divisional Magistrate, for the purpose of removal of en-
l' 
croachment from government land allegedly entered the chamber of the 
complainant, used filthy language and dragged him out-Held, the act alleged 
D 
has a reasonable nexus with the official duty of the appellant and hence is 
entitled to the immunity from criminal proceedings without sanction. 
Appellant was a Sub-Divisional-Officer at place 'N'.For the purpose 
.._ 
of removal of the encroachments from the government land carried out by 
respondent, the appellant is alleged to have entered the chamber of the 
E 
respondent, used filthy language and dragged him out of the chamber in 
discharge of his official duty. Aggrieved, respondent ftled a romplaint. The 
--
Additional Chief JudiciaLMagistrate took cognizance of the offence against 
the appellant under the penal code. The appellant filed a petition seeking 
quashing of the congnizance order on the ground of want of sanction of the 
)-:-
competent authority under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 
F 
The High Court dismissed the petition holding that the allegations consti-
toting the offence against the appellant are not directly or reasonably 
connected with bis official duty. Hence this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
G 
+ 
HELD : 1.1. Section 197 of Criminal Procedure Code affords protec-
-
tion to a judge or magistrate or a public servant. The protection is provided 
in the form that no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with 
the previous sanction of the Central Government or State Government as 
the case may be against any offence alleged to have been committed by him 
H 
159 
160 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. The 
offence said to have been committed should have reasonable and rational 
nexus with the official duties required to be discharged by such public 
servant. [163-F; 164-C] 
r" 
B 
1.2. The object to the section is to save judges, magistrates and public 
servants from vexatious proceedings but it is no part of the policy to set 
such officials above the common law. H he commits an offence not con-
nected with his official duty he has no privilege. [163-G] 
1.3. The appellant in discharge of his official capacity as a Sub-
c 
Divisional Magistrate who for the purpose of removal of encroachment 
from government land allegedly entered the chamber of the complaint, 
used filthy language and dragged him out of the chamber. The act alleged 
has a reasonable nexus with the official duty of the appellant and hence is 
"'f 
entitled to the immunity from crhninal proceedings without sanction under 
D 
section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure. [166-D-F] 
Matajog Dobey v. H.C. Bhari, Am (1956) SC 44; Suresh Kumar 
Bhikamchand Jain v. Pandey Ajay Bhushan & Ors., [1998] 1 SCC 205; State 
through the CBI v. B.L Venna & Another, [1997] 10 SCC 772 andN.K. Ogle v. 
Sanwaldas alias Sanwalmal Ahuja, [1999] 2 SCC 284, relied on. 
E 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 379 
of 2000. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.5.99 of the Patna High Court 
in Crl. M. No. 23755 of 1998. 
F 
-1. 
Sunil Kumar, Dr. Sumant Bhardwaj, Y.R. Mishra, Ms. Mridula Ray 
Bharadwaj, B.B. Singh and S.V. Deshpande for the appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G 
D.P. MOHAPATRA, J. Leave granted. 
_,. 
The short question that arises for determination in this case is whether 
.,.... 
on the allegations made in the complaint and the materials available on record, 
Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is applicable to the case? The 
H 
High Court of Patna having answered the question in the negative the accused 
... 
G.S. PRASAD v. STATE [D.P. MOHAPATRA, I.] 
has filed this appeal challenging the order. 
161 
Tue factual Matrix given rise to the proceeding may be stated thus: 
Tue appel

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