Supreme Court of India

Supreme Court of India

State Of U.P. vs Paras Nath Singh on 5 May, 2009
Bench: Arijit Pasayat, D.K. Jain, Mukundakam Sharma
HELD: 1.1. Section 197 CrPC falls in the chapter dealing with conditions requisite for initiation of
proceedings. That is if the conditions mentioned are not made out or are absent then no prosecution can be set
into motion. The cognizance of any offence, by any court, as regards public servants is barred by Section 197
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 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 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 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
committed during discharge of his official duty. [Para 4] [91-D-E-G-H; 92-A-D]
Black's Law Dictionary, referred to.
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 in discharge of his duty. The Section does not extend its
protective cover to every act or omission done by a public 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, 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
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 of duty which further must have been official in nature. The
Section has, thus, to be construed strictly, while determining its 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 his duty, then it must be given liberal and wide construction so far its official nature is concerned.
Otherwise the entire purpose of affording protection to a public servant without sanction shall stand frustrated.
[Para 7] [93-D-G; 94-A]
1.4. If on facts, it is prima facie found that the act or omission for which the accused was charged had
reasonable connection with discharge of his duty then the act must be held as official to which applicability of
Section 197 CrPC cannot be disputed. [Para 8] [94-E-F]
Matajog Dobey v. H. C. Bhari AIR 1956 SC 44, relied on
S.A. Venkataraman v. The State AIR 1958 SC 107; C. R. Bansi v. The State of Maharashtra 1970 (3) SCC
537, referred to.
1.5. It is not correct to say that for offences u/ss. 406 and 409 r/w Section 120-B IPC, sanction u/s. 197 CrPC
is a condition precedent for launching the prosecution. It is not every offence committed by a public servant,
which requires sanction for prosecution u/s. 197 CrPC, nor even every act done by him while he is actually
engaged in the performance of his official duties. [Para 10] [95-A-C]
State Of U.P. vs Paras Nath Singh on 5 May, 2009
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/219527/ 1
Harihar Prasad, etc. v. State of Bihar 1972 (3) SCC 89; S.R. Munnipalli v. Bombay 1955 (1) SCR 1177;
Amrik Singh v. State Pepsu 1955 RD-SC 9; State of Kerala v. Padmanabhan Nair 1999 (5) SCC 690 and State
of H.P. v. M.P. Gupta 2004 (2) SCC 349, relied on.
2.1. The question relating to Section 313 CrPC loses significance when considered in the background as to
whether there was any need for sanction. The first Appellate Court and the High Court have not kept this
aspect in view. [Paras 13 and 14] [96-A-B]
2.2. The error in framing of charge also does not vitiate the order. Section 464 IPC, itself mandates that no
finding sanction or order by a court of competent jurisdiction becomes invalid unless it is so that a failure of
justice has in fact been occasioned because of any error omission or irregularity in the charge including in
misjoinder of charge. The burden is on the accused to show that in fact failure of justice has been occasioned.
[Paras 13, 16 and 17] [96-A; 97-A-B]
Case Law Reference:
1979 (4) SCC 177 Referred to Para 5
AIR 1956 SC 44 Relied on Para 7
AIR 1958 SC 107 Referred to Para 9
1970 (3) SCC 537 Referred to Para 9
1955 (1) SCR 1177 Relied on Para 10
1955 RD-SC 9) Relied on Para 10
1972 (3) SCC 89 Relied on Para 10
1999 (5) SCC 690 Relied on Para 11
2004 (2) SCC 349 Relied on Para 12
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 499 of 2004.
From the Judgment & Order dated 03.04.2003 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow
Bench Lucknow in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1074/2000.
Shail Kumar Dwivedi, AAG, Manoj Kr. Diwedi, AAG, Pramod Swarup, G.V. Rao and Javed Mahmud Rao
for the Appellant.
J.S. Attri and Rajender Pd. Saxena for the Respondents.
State Of U.P. vs Paras Nath Singh on 5 May, 2009
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/219527/ 2