JAYASINGH versus K.K. VELAYUTHAM AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 348 · Decided: 25-04-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
JAYASINGH 
V. 
K.K. VELA YUTHAM AND ANR. 
APRIL 25, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860-Section 427-Policy decision of Government to 
remove kiosks etc. from hmpital premises in public interest-Removed by 
C accused on direction of his superior officer---Complaint against removal-No 
complaint against the accused-During investigation statement of superior 
officer to the effect that the accused by letter informed that he had removed 
the kiosk---Charge-sheet on the basis of the statement-Propriety of- Held: 
D 
E 
F 
Offence not proved-Accused had only complied with the order of superior 
officer. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973---Section !97---Act of accused in 
discharge of official duty-Prosecution without obtaining order of sanction 
under the provision-Prior sanction-Requirement of-Held: In the facts of 
the case sanction for the prosecution of the accused was necessary. 
Wife of respondent No.I was running a tea stall. State Government 
issued a Government Order containing a policy decision to remove all such 
kiosks, tea stalls and bunks from the hospital premises in public interest. 
The validity of such policy decision was upheld in N. Jagadeesan and Ors. 
v. Distt. Collector, North Arcot and Ors., I 1997) 4 SCC 508. 
Direction was issued to the appellant herein by the Executive 
Engineer to remove the tea stall. In pursuance to the direction, appellant 
removed the tea stall. The contempt petition for this act of the appellant 
was also dismissed. 
G 
Respondent No. I filed a complaint, wherein no allegation was made 
against the appellant. During investigation Executive Engineer alleged that 
the appellant had informed by a letter that he had removed the shop; and 
the same was done by the appellant by engaging his men in his own 
supervision. On the basis of the statement of the Executive Engineer, 
H charge-sheet was filed against the appellant. Appellant filed application 
348 
-
• 
-· 
JAY AS!NGH v. K.K. VELA YUTHAM 
349 
for discharge on the ground that no sanction was obtained as required A 
u/s 197 Cr.P.C. The plea was accepted by the Metropolitan Magistrate. 
Revision Petition by respondent No. 1 was allowed by High Court. Hence 
the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. Appellant only complied with a the order of the Executive 
Engineer asking him to remove the said tea stall; thereby he cannot be 
said to have committed any offence whatsoever. The name of the appellant 
B 
was taken by the Executive Engineer himself, under whose direction he 
acted. He, in his statement made before the police, merely stated that the C 
appellant by his letter intimated to him that the tea stall had been removed. 
On the basis of the said statement no inference could be drawn that the 
appellant committed an offence purported to be under Section 427 IPC. 
From a perusal of the charge-sheet, as also the materials which are 
available on record, it does not appear that there is anything to show as 
to how and in what manner the appellant could be said to have committed D 
a mischief or how the ingredients of the said provision stood satisfied. The 
statement of the Executive Engineer, on the basis whereof the appellant 
had been charge-sheeted, even if given face value and taken to be correct 
in its entirety does not disclose an offence. [355-C-E) 
1.2. No allegation had been made against the appellant either in his E 
complaint filed by respondent No. 1 or in his statement under Section 161 
Cr.P.C. that he had transgressed his authority or committed the alleged 
crime. (355-F) 
2.1. Even if the statement of the Executive Engineer on the basis F 
whereof the charge sheet has been filed against the Appellant is accepted 
to be correct, sanction for his prosecution, as envisaged under Section 197 
Cr.P.C. in the facts and circumstances of this case was necessary. The 
prosecution should have obtained an order of sanction in terms of Section 
197 Cr.P.C. [355-E-G) 
G 
2.2. The provisions of Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code 
would be attracted if the offence alleged to have been committed [by the 
accused] must have something to do or must be related in some manner 
with the discharge of official duty. There must be a reasonable connection 
between the act and the discharge of official duty; the act must bear such H 
relation to the duty that the accused could lay a reasonable claim but not 
350 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A a pretended or

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