Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court 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 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

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