INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ANOTHER versus BATIENAPATLA VEN KATA RATNAM AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2015] 4 S.C.R. 609 · Decided: 13-04-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 4 S.C.R. 609 
INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ANOTHER 
A 
V. 
BATIENAPATLA VEN KATA RATNAM AND ANOTHER 
(Criminal Appeal No. 129 of 2013 etc.) 
April 13, 2015 
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.) 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
s.482 - Proceedings u/ss. 420, 468, 477A, 1208 rlw 
s. 109 of /PC - Quashed by High Court on the ground of non-
compliance of s.197 Cr.P.C - Held: Proceedings not liable 
B 
c 
to be quashed as the acts alleged cannot be said to be in D 
discharge of official duty - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.420, 468. 
477-A, 1208 and 109. 
s. 197 - Sanction before prosecution of public servant 
- Prosecuted for offences u!ss 420, 468, 477A, 1208 rlw 
s.109 /PC - Held: Protection uls 197 is for advancing the E 
cause of honesty, justice and good governance and not for 
protecting corrupt officials - The acts alleged, cannot be said 
to be in discharge of official duty- Hence, protection uls 197 
not available in the present case - Penal Code, 1860 -
F 
ss.420, 468, 477A, 1208 and 109. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. Public servants have been treated as 
special category u/s. 197 CrPC, to protect them from G 
malicious or vexatious prosecution. Such protection 
from harassment is given in public interest; the same 
609 
H 
610 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 4 S.C.R. 
A cannot be treated as shield to protect corrupt officials. 
B 
The provisions dealing with Section 197 CrPC must be 
construed in such a manner as to advance the cause 
of honesty, justice and good governance. [para 10] [614-
E-F] 
Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh and another 
2012 (3) SCR 52 = 2012 (3) SCC 64 - relied on. 
2. The alleged indulgence of the officers in cheating, 
fabrication of records or misappropriation cannot be 
C said to be in discharge of their official duty. Their official 
duty is not to fabricate records or permit evasion of 
payment of duty and cause loss to the Revenue. If at 
all the said view of sanction is to be considered, it could 
0 
be done at the stage of trial only. [para 11] [615-C-D] 
Rajib Ranjan and others v. R. Vijaykumar (2015) 1 
sec 513 - relied on. 
Shambhoo Nath Misra v. State of UP and others 1997 
E (2) SCR 1139 = 1997 (5) SCC 326; Parkash Singh Badal 
v. State of Punjab and others 2006 (10) Suppl. SCR 197 = 
2007 (1) sec 1 - referred to. 
F 
G 
Case Law Reference 
1997 (2) SCR 1139 
referred to 
para 7 
2006 (10) Suppl. SCR 197 referred to 
para 8 
(2015) 1 sec 513 
relied on 
para 9 
2012 (3) SCR 52 
relied on 
para 10 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 129 of 2013. 
H 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.12.2007 of the 
INSPECTOR OF POLICE v. BATTENAPATLA VENKATA 611 
RATNAM 
High Court of Judicature Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in 
A 
Criminal Petition No. 6213 of 2007 
with 
Crl. A. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 130, 131, & 132 B 
of 2013. 
Guntur Prabhakar, Prerna Singh, D. Mahesh Babu for the 
Appellants. 
K. Maruti Rao, K. Subba Rao, Aniruddha P. Mayee, V. 
C 
Sridhar Reddy, V. N. Raghupathy for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KURIAN, J. 1. Whether sanction under Section 197 of 0 
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred 
to as 'CrPC') is required to initiate criminal proceedings in 
respect of offences under Sections 420, 468, 477A, 1208 
read with 109 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) 
(hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'), is the question arising for E 
consideration in these cases. 
2. The District Registrar, Vijayawada lodged a complaint 
with the Inspector of Police, CBCID Vijayawada on 
07.07.1999. The main allegation against the respondents was 
F 
that while they were working as Sub-Registrars in various 
offices in the State of Andhra Pradesh, they conspired with 
stamp vendors and document writers and other staff to gain 
monetary benefit and resorted to manipulation of registers and 
got the registration of the documents with old value of the G 
properties, resulting in wrongful gain to themselves and loss 
to the Government, and thereby cheated the public and the 
Government. 
3. On the basis of the complaint, F.1.R. No. 35/1999 was H 
612 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 4 S.C.R. 
A 
registered by the appellant, and after investigation, report 
under Section 173(2) CrPC against 41 persons including the 
respondents herein, was submitted before the Ill Additional 
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. The respondents 
raised the objection that there was no sanction under Section 
B 197 CrP
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.