LexSTATE OF U.P. versus PARAS NATH SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. [2009] 8 S.C.R. 85 STATE OF U.P. A v. PARAS NATH SINGH (Criminal Appeal No. 499 of 2004) MAY 5, 2009 B \ [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, D. K. JAIN AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure; 1973 - s.197 - Sanction for prosecution - Scope of - Held: The provision is applicable c to act or omission in discharge of official duty and not to every act or omission of public servant in service - Once act or omission found to be in discharge of official duty, the provision to be given liberal and wide construction - Every offence committed by public servant does not require sanction for D prosecution. Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 409 and 468 - Conviction by trial cowt - Acquittal by appellate court - High Court refusing to grant leave to appeal - On appeal, held: Acquittal on the basis E of error in framing of charges does not vitiate the conviction order as no failure of justice was occasioned thereby - Inappropriate examination of accused also loses significance in view of the finding that there was no need for sanction - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.197. F Words and Phrases - 'Cognizance' - Meaning of. Respondent-accused was prosecuted u/ss.409 and 468 IPC. Trial court convicted him. Appellate court 1 acquitted him on the grounds viz. the officer according ~ G sanction for prosecution was not authorized to do so; charges were wrongly framed; and during examination u/s. 313 CrPC appropriate question was not put to the accused. High Court refused to grant leave to appeal on 85 H 86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 8 S.C.R. .. A the ground that the sanction for prosecution was not by the authorized officer. Hence, the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Section 197 CrPC falls in the chapter 8 dealing with conditions requisite for initiation of proceedin~1s. That is if the conditions mentioned are not made out or are absent then no prosecution can be set f into motion. The cognizance of any offence, by any court, as regards public servants is barred by Section 197 c unless sanction is obtained from the appropriate authority, if the offence, alleged to have been committed, was in discharge of the official duty. The Section not only specifies the persons to whom the protection is afforded but it also specifies the conditions and circumstances in D 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 ~he expression, 'no court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction'. Use of the E words, 'no' and 'shall' make it abundantly clear that the bar on the exercise of power of the court to take 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 F entertaining a complaint or taki,ng notice of it or exercising jurisdiction if it is in respect of a public servant who is accused of an offence alleged to have committed during discharge of his official duty. [Para 4] [91-D-E-G- H; 92-A-D] G Black's Law Dictionary, referred to. r • 1.2. Use of the expression, 'official duty' implies that the act or omission must have been done by the public in the course of his service and that it should have been H in discharge of his duty. The Section does not extend its -, STATE OF U.P. v. PARAS NATH SINGH 87 <Iii protective cover to every act or omission done by a public A servant in service but restricts its scope of operation to only those acts or omissions which are done by a public servant in discharge of official duty. [Para 6] [93-C-D] B. Saha and Ors. v. M. S. Kochar 1979 (4) SCC 177, B referred to. 1.3. The scope has been widened further by ~ extending protection to even those acts or omissions which are done in purported exercise of official duty. That is under the colour of office. Official duty therefore implies c that the act or .. omission must have been done by the public servant in course of his service and such act or omission must have been performed as part Qf duty which further must have been official in nature. The Section has, thus, to be construed strictly, while determining its D applicability to any act or omission in course of service. But once any act or omission haS" been found to have been committed by a public servant in discharge of hi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.