K. CH. PRASAD versus SMT. J.VANALATHA DEVI AND ORS.

Citation: [1987] 2 S.C.R. 216 · Decided: 10-02-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.L. OZA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
K. CH. PRASAD 
v. 
SMT. J.VANALATHA DEVI AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 10, 1987 
[G.L. OZA AND M.M. DUTT, JJ] 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-s.197-Applicab/e only when 
public servant not removable from office save by or with sanction of 
~ 
Government-Officer of nationalised bank-Though 'public servant' 
sanction not necessary. 
Indian Penal Code, 1860-ss.120(b), 467 & 471-0fficer of 
nationalised bank-Prosecution for offences-Sanction under s.197 
Cr/. P. C.-Whether necessary. 
On a complaint being filed nnder s. 120(b) read with ss.467 and 
47 I of the Indian Penal Code, the Metropolitan Magistrate summoned 
the appellant and thereafter rejected his objection abont the maintaina-
bility of his prosecution for want of sanction under s. 197 of the Crimi-
nal Procedure Code, holding that s.197 does not apply because the 
appellant is an officer who is removable from his office by a competent 
authority and no sanctirno of the Government is necessary. This view 
was affirmed by the High Court. 
In the appeal to this Court, on behalf of the appellant it was 
contended: (i) that after the nationalisation of the Department of the 
appellant he will fall withitn the definition of pnblic servant and, there-
fore, s. 197 will be attracted and (ii) that although the competent autho-
rity who can remove the appellant from service is not the Government, 
bnt it has been empowered under the regulations framed under the Act 
of Parliament with the approval and sanction of the Central Govern· 
ment and, therefore, the view taken by the Courts below is not correct. 
Dismissing the Appeal, 
HELD: It is clear that s. 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code is 
attracted only in cases where the public servant is such who is not 
removable from his offi<:e save by or with the sanction of the 
Government. [219BJ 
·-t·
) 
H 
In the instant case, i.t is not disputed that the appellant is not 
216 
""'r 
_.)., 
K. CH. PRASAD v. J. VANALATHA DEVI [OZA, J.J 
217 
holding a post where he could not be removed from service except by or A 
with the sanction of the Government. In this view of the matter even if it 
is held that appellant is a public servant still provisions of s. 197 are not 
attracted at all. Therefore, the view taken by the Courts below could 
not be said to be erroneous. [219D I 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal B 
No. 829 of 1985. 
From the Judgment and order dated 28.11.1983 of the Andhra 
Pradesh High Court in Crl. Revn. Case/Petn. No. 290 of 1983. 
R. Venkataramani and R. Ayyam Perumal for the Appellant. 
C 
A. Sobba Rao for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by, 
OZA, J. This appeal has been filed by the appellant after D 
obtaining leave from this Court against an order passed by the High 
Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 28.11.1983 wherein the High Court 
rejected a Revision Petition filed by the appellant. 
Against the appellant a complaint was filed in the Court of 
Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad under Section 120(b) read with E 
Sections 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. After summons were 
issued the appellant raised objection about the maintainability of this 
prosecution for want of sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal 
Procedure Code. The objection was rejected by the Metropolitan 
Magistrate, Hyderabad and against the order of the Metropolitan 
Magistrate a Revision Petition was filed in the High Court which has F 
been rejected by the impugned order passed by the Andhra Pradesh 
High Court. 
The learned Metropolitan Magistrate held that Section 197 is 
attracted only when a public servant is not removable from his office 
save by or with the sanction of the Government. The appellant is an G 
officer who is removable from his office by a competent authority and 
no sanction of the Government is necessary. Consequently Section 197 
in terms does not apply. This view was affirmed by the High Court of 
Andhra Pradesh. 
It was contended by the learned counsel that after nationalisa- H 
A 
B 
c 
218 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1987] 2 S.C.R. 
tion as the banks are nationalised the appellant will fall within the 
definition of public servant and therefore Section 197 will be attracted. 
It was also contended that although the appellant is removable by an 
authority which is not Government but the authority has been em-
powered under the regulations and these regulations have been framed 
with the sanction of the Government and under these circumstances 
therefore th

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