Sanction Under Section 197 CrPC Not a Precondition to Trial Under IPC—It Depends on Evidence at Trial Stage: Supreme Court

“Accused Can Raise the Defence of Want of Sanction at Any Stage—Not a Ground to Stall Framing of Charges Under IPC”:  In a key ruling  Supreme Court of India declined to interfere with the Uttarakhand High Court’s order rejecting a challenge to the framing of charges under the IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against a public servant, while clarifying that want of sanction under Section 197 CrPC is not fatal at the stage of framing of charges.

A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that the question of sanction under Section 197 CrPC is not to be treated as a preliminary hurdle, but a defence that can be raised at any stage depending on the nature of evidence led during trial.

“We are of the view that the issue of sanction under Section 197 CrPC can be taken up before the Trial Court at any stage of the proceedings. It would all depend on the nature of the evidence that the prosecution may lead in the course of the trial.”

“Admission That No Objection to Charges Under PC Act—But Sanction Is Required for IPC Offences”: Supreme Court Records Counsel’s Position

The case arose from Criminal Revisions No. 313/2016 and 314/2016 filed before the Uttarakhand High Court, where the petitioner, Ram Sagar, had challenged the framing of charges under Sections 120B, 409, 420, 477A IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The petitioner's senior counsel, Mr. K. Parameshwar, conceded that the accused was not contesting charges under the PC Act, but objected to the IPC charges due to lack of sanction under Section 197 CrPC, which is mandatory for prosecuting public servants for acts done in discharge of official duties.

The High Court had already addressed this contention, observing: “So far the offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is concerned, the revisionist is not challenging that part of the charge… since the prosecution did not obtain the sanction from the department to prosecute the revisionist in respect of offences punishable under the Penal Code… the trial cannot proceed in respect of charges under IPC.”

However, the High Court ultimately rejected the revisions, prompting the present appeal.

“Framing of Charge Is Not the Stage for Final Determination of Sanction Requirement”: Supreme Court Cautions Against Premature Interference

The Supreme Court reiterated its consistent position that Section 197 CrPC is not a sword to scuttle trial in its infancy, particularly when the allegations concern serious economic offences involving public trust.

While disposing of the petitions, the Court clarified: “We need not interfere with the common impugned order passed by the High Court at this stage.”

It left open the liberty for the accused to raise the defence of sanction before the Trial Court at an appropriate stage, making it clear that such an objection is not to be decided in abstract, but in light of the evidence produced during trial.

“Accused May Seek Exemption from Personal Appearance—But Trial Must Proceed”: Court Offers Procedural Liberty Without Halting Prosecution

In a gesture of procedural balance, the Supreme Court granted liberty to the accused to approach the Trial Court for exemption from personal appearance under Sections 205 and 317 of CrPC, now replaced by Sections 228 and 355 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, noting:

“It shall be open for the petitioner to apply with the Trial Court under Sections 205 and 317 Cr.P.C. respectively (Sections 228 and 355 of BNSS, 2023) seeking exemption from personal attendance.”

However, this liberty does not translate into a stay or interference with the trial proceedings, which are to continue as per law.

The judgment in Ram Sagar vs. CBI reiterates a vital principle of criminal jurisprudence: Sanction under Section 197 CrPC is a matter to be decided contextually, not abstractly. The ruling bars accused public servants from using the absence of sanction as a shield to prevent framing of charges under IPC, especially when charges under the PC Act are admitted.

It also reinforces judicial restraint at the pre-trial stage, ensuring that evidentiary examination is not short-circuited by premature procedural objections. The decision sets a precedent for trial courts to examine sanction contentions only when the prosecution evidence touches upon acts done in official capacity.

Date of Decision: 9 September 2025