STATE OF ORISSA THROUGH KUMAR RAGHVENDRA SINGH AND ORS. versus GANESH CHANDRA JEW

Citation: [2004] 3 S.C.R. 504 · Decided: 24-03-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
STATE OF ORISSA THROUGH KUMAR 
RAGHVENDRA SINGH AND ORS. 
V. 
GANESH CHANDRA JEW 
MARCH 24, 2004 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJlT PASA YAT. JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 197 3-Section 197-Sanclion-
C Requirement of-Acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duty--
Meaning of-Cognizance without sanction-Legality of-Officers of forest 
department arresting R for illegally possessing ivory-Complaint flied by R 
alleging assault and maltreatment during arrest and thereafter-Held, act 
done in discharge of official duty-Cognizance without sanction is prohibited 
D 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973--Section 482-Quashing o}--Officers 
E 
of forest department arresting R for il/egal~v possessing ivory-Complaint 
flied by R alleging assault a~d maltreatment during arrest and thereafter-On 
appearance before Magistrate no grievance made-Medical examination of R 
by a private doctor after 3 days-Complaint flied after 13 days-Held, 
complaint liable to he quashed as malafide prosecution. 
A complaint was filed by the respondent against the appellants, who 
were officers of the Forest Department, alleging commission of offences 
punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325, 506 and 386 read with Section 
34 of IPC. The respondent alleged that he had been falsely implicated by 
F the officers for possession of elephant tusks. He was arrested, made to walk 
on the roads with handcuffs and sit under a tree in full public view. He 
was not allowed to take insulin though request was made. At the time of 
his production before the SDJM, elephant tusks were put on his shoulders. 
He was also assaulted severely causing serious injuries. 
G 
Before the SDJM, the respondent did not make any grievance about 
H 
ill-treatment by the appellants. Three days after being released on bail, 
the respondent got himself examined by a private doctor. The complaint 
against the officers was lodged 13 days after the alleged occurrence. 
The appellants sought for quashing of the proceedings on the ground 
504 
--., 
< 
• 
.,-
I 
-t 
-< 
-..\ 
. f. 
STATE OF OR ISSA v. G.C. JEW 
505 
that no sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had A 
been granted and therefore, cognizance could not be taken. The High 
Court granted liberty to the appellants to make submission before the 
SDJM. The SDJM took the view that no sanction under Section 197 was 
necessary. 
The appellants filed petition under Section 482 of the Code of B 
Criminal Procedure, which was dismissed taking the view that Section 197 
had no application to the facts the case. Hence the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. So far public servants are concerned the cognizance of c 
any offence, by any Court, is barred by Section 197 of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure unless sanction is obtained from the appropriate 
authority, if the offence, alleged to have been committed, was in discharge 
of the official duty. Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does 
not only specify the persons to whom the protection is afforded but it also D 
specifies the conditions and circumstances in which it shall be available 
and the effect in law if the conditions are satisfied. The mandatory 
character of the protection afforded to a public servant is brought out by 
the expression, "no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with 
the previous sanction". Use of the words, "no" and "shall" make it 
abundantly clear that the bar on exercise of power by the Court to take E 
cognizance of any offence is absolute and complete. Very cognizance is 
barred. That is, the complaint cannot be taken notice of. A Court, 
therefore, is precluded from entertaining a complaint or taking notice of 
it or exercising jurisdiction if it is in respect of a public servant who is 
accused of an offence alleged to have been committed during discharge F 
of his official duty. [512-E-H; 513-AJ 
1.2. The protection given by Section 197 o( the Code of Criminal 
Procedure is to protect responsible public servants and the institution of 
possibly vexatious criminal proceedings for offences alleged to have been 
committed by them while they are acting or purporting to act as public G 
servants. The policy of the legislature is to afford adequate protection to 
public servants to ensure that they are not prosecuted for anything done 
by them in the discharge of their official duties without reasonable cause . 
This protection has certain limits and is available only when the alleged

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