Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

Supreme Court Rules on Sanction Requirements for Public Servants: Clarifies Applicability of Sections 197 of the Cr.P.C and 19 of the PC Act

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


On August 8, 2023, In a significant ruling today, the Supreme Court of India provided clarity on the legal provisions surrounding the requirement of sanction for prosecution of public servants. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising of Justices B.R. Gavai and J.B. Pardiwala, delved into the applicability of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) for public servants facing criminal charges.

The crux of the judgment revolved around whether the accused, serving as an Assistant General Manager at a Nationalized Bank, could claim protection under Section 197 of the CrPC, and whether sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act was mandatory for prosecuting him for offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Justice B.R. Gavai, writing for the bench, emphasized, "The protection of Section 197 of the CrPC is available only to public servants whose appointing authority is the Central or State Government, and not to every public servant." The Court cited relevant case law to establish that even though a person working in a Nationalized Bank is a public servant, they are not entitled to the safeguards provided by Section 197.

Regarding the requirement of sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act, the Court clarified that such a necessity arises only when dealing with offenses under the PC Act itself. It was noted that there is a material distinction between the statutory provisions of these two sections, and that the necessity for sanction under Section 19 is automatic for PC Act offenses, while for IPC offenses, the "nexus" between the act and the official duty must be evaluated.

Justice Gavai remarked, "To commit an offense punishable under law can never be a part of the official duty of a public servant." The judgment cautioned against treating the discharge of official duty as a cloak for illicit acts.

Supreme  Court held that the appellant did not fall within the scope of Section 197 of the CrPC and, although discharged from PC Act offenses, could be prosecuted for IPC offenses without the need for sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act. This ruling is expected to provide essential guidance for future cases involving the prosecution of public servants and the application of sanction requirements.

Date of Decision: August 8, 2023

SREENIVASA REDDY vs RAKESH SHARMA & ANR. 

Latest Legal News