CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

Sanction for Prosecution Not Required: manufacturing of forged documents not the part of the official duty: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has overturned a decision by the Karnataka High Court regarding the necessity of sanction for prosecuting a public servant under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The case involved respondent No. 2, a village accountant, accused of fabricating official documents.

The Apex Court’s judgment, led by Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, highlights the nuanced interpretation of legal provisions concerning the prosecution of public servants. The Supreme Court observed, “Certainly, a view can be taken that manufacturing of such documents or fabrication of records cannot be a part of the official duty of a public servant” [Para 25]. This observation is pivotal in understanding the court’s stance on the matter.

The initial complaint, lodged in 2016, accused the respondent of creating false documents for illegal gain. While the High Court initially refused to interfere with the FIR, it later quashed the complaint and chargesheet due to the absence of sanction for the prosecution of the public servant, which became the crux of the appeal in the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court, in its detailed analysis, remarked on the essence of Section 197 Cr.PC, stating, “Section 197 Cr.PC does not extend its protective cover to every act or omission of a public servant while in service. It is restricted to only those acts or omissions which are done by public servants in the discharge of official duties” [Para 23]. This statement clarifies the court’s interpretation of the law in contexts where public servants’ actions are allegedly criminal and unconnected with their official duties.

In setting aside the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court has remanded the matter for further proceedings, ensuring that the judicial approach aligns with the legal framework governing the sanction for the prosecution of public servants. This judgment is expected to have significant implications for cases involving alleged criminal activities by public servants in India.

Date of Decision: 17th January 2024

SHADAKSHARI VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.

 

Latest Legal News