N.K. OGLE versus SANWALDAS @ SANWALMAL AHUJA

Citation: [1999] 1 S.C.R. 1233 · Decided: 18-03-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

( 
f 
..... 
:::r 
N.K. OGLE 
A 
v. 
SANWALDAS @ SANWALMAL AHUJA 
MARCH 18, 1999 
[G.B. PATIANAIK AND M.B. SHAH, iJ.) 
B 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 197-lmmunity contemplated 
under-Applicability of-District Collector ordered the Tehsildar to recover 
certain sum of lease money from R-Telisildar registering the matter and · 
issued a DemQlld Letter to R-R did not pay, instead he visited the Tehsildar C 
by visiting his office on his scooter and objected to the issue of Demand 
letter-Tehsildar seized the scooter Qlld sold the same in auctiort-R filing a 
complaint under Section 379 lPC Qlld getting the process issued from the 
Magistrate-Held Such an act on the part of Tehsildar was a bona fide act 
in purported exercise of power under M.P. Land Revenue Code-Hence, in D 
the absence of SQ/lction under Section 197 CrPC, compliant filed by R against 
the Tehsildar was not maintainabl~urther, High Court erred ill examining 
the legality of the order of attachment of the Collector Qlld in holding otherwise 
on that ground-f'enal Code, 1860, Section 379-Complaint against Tehsildar 
without Sanction under Section 197 CrPC-Maintainability-M.P. Land E 
Revenue Code, 1959. 
The appellant, a Tehsildar received an order from collector to collect 
certain lease money from the respondent. The Tehsildar issued a demand 
letter to respondent. The respondent later came in his scooter to the office 
of Tehsildar and objected to the legality of the order of issuing the demand p 
letter. The Tehsildar seized the scooter and immediately reported to the 
Collector. The respondent, thereafter, filed a complaint under Section 379 
IPC against the Tehsildar alleging that the Tehsildar had forcibly kept his 
scooter while he had gone to his office. After the seizure of the scoter, the 
same was auctioned by the Tehsildar. The Judicial Magistrate on the basis 
of the complaint of the respondent took cognizance of the same and issued G 
process against Tehsildar. The process was challenged by the Tehsildar on 
the ground that the act complained of were in discharge of his official duty 
and therefore, in the absence of sanction under Section 197 CrPC, the 
Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It was rejected by 
the Magistrate on the ground that the acts complained of had no rational H 
1233 
1234 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1999) 1 S.C.R. 
A nexus with the discharge of official duty of Tehsildar. On Revision, the 
Sessions Court reversed the finding of the Magistrate holding that the acts 
complained of were directly connected with the performance of his official 
duties. The respondent thereafter challenged the order of the Sessions 
Judge in Revision before the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. The 
B High Court set aside the order of the Sessions Court on the ground that 
the acts complained of did not .appear to relate with the responsibility of 
the post of Tehsildar, and hence, the immunity of Section 197 Cr PC was 
refused. However, in coming to the above conclusion ~he High Court 
examined the provisions of the M.P. Land Revenue Code and held that the 
order of attachment of the Collector was not in accordance with law and 
C therefore, any purported action taken by Tehsildar on the basis of such 
invalid order would not give him protection of Section 197 CrPC. Hence 
this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
D 
HELD : 1. Before coming to a conclusion whether the provisions of 
Section 197 CrPC will apply, Court must come to a conclusion that there 
is a reasonable connection between the act complained of and the discharge 
of official duty; the act bear such relation to the duty that the accused could 
lay a reasonable claim that he did it in the course of the performance of his 
E duty. Therefore, in the present case the conclusion is inescapable that the 
act of the Tehsildar in seizing the scooter of the respondent was in dis-
charge of his official dutywhich he was required to do in purported exercise 
of the power under the M.P. Land Revenue Code on the basis of the order 
issued by the Collector for collecting the lease money from the respondent 
and' the said act cannot be said to be a pretended or fanciful claim on the 
F part of the Tehsildar. The High Court committed error at that stage in 
examining the flaw or legality of the order of attachment issued by the 
Tehsildar. Therefore, the acts compfained of by the respondent in his 
complaint under Section 379 IPC against the Tehsildar has been

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