Sec.197 Cr.P.C. - Sanction whether can be considered at the inception stage or at any stage ? - Apex court held that when the allegations are in excess of official duties - Sanction is a conditional precedent for taking cognizance - in other cases it can be considered at any stage - In the case before us, the allegation is that the appellant exceeded in exercising his power during investigation of a criminal case and assaulted the respondent in order to extract some information with regard to the death of one Sannamma, and in that connection, the respondent was detained in the police station for some time. Therefore, the alleged conduct has an essential connection with the discharge of the official duty. Under Section 197 of CrPC, in case, the Government servant accused of an offence, which is alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duty, the previous sanction is necessary. - Apex court set aside the orders of High court and orders of Trail court taking cognizance of the case - 2015 S.C. MSKLAWREPORTS

Sec.197 Cr.P.C. - Sanction whether can be considered at the inception stage or at any stage ? - Apex court held that when the allegations are in excess of official duties - Sanction is a conditional precedent for taking cognizance - in other cases it can be considered at any stage -  In the case before us, the allegation is  that  the  appellant  exceeded  in exercising his power during investigation of a criminal case  and  assaulted the respondent in order to extract  some  information  with  regard  to  the death of one Sannamma, and in that connection, the respondent  was  detained in the police station for some time. Therefore, the alleged conduct  has  an essential connection with the discharge of the official duty. Under  Section 197 of CrPC, in case, the Government servant accused of  an  offence,  which is alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting  to  act in discharge of his official duty, the previous sanction is necessary. - Apex court set aside the orders of High court and orders of Trail court taking cognizance of the case - 2015 S.C. MSKLAWREPORTS

 the complainant was picked  up
from his garden land at  about  10.00  a.m.  on  6/6/2006  in  the  morning.
Further averment reveals that this petitioner came  to  the  police  station
later in the evening and detained him till  10.00  p.m.  and  also  directed
that he should not be let-out till  he  reveals  or  confesses  that  he  is
involved in the murder of one Sannamma. 

These allegations in  the  complaint
are further corroborated in the sworn statement of the complainant which  is
further fortified from the sworn statement of  his  two  witnesses,  namely,
PWs. 2 and 3. 

The Court at this stage  is  required  to  consider  only  the
sworn  statement  of  the  complainant  and  his  witnesses  to  come  to  a
conclusion whether a prima facie case is made out for registering  the  case
and issuing summons

The question, whether sanction is necessary or not, may arise on  any  stage
of the proceedings, and in a given case,  it  may  arise  at  the  stage  of
inception 
as held by this Court  in  Om  Prakash  
 To quote:

“41. The upshot of this discussion is that whether sanction is necessary  or
not has to be decided from stage to stage. This question may  arise  at  any
stage of the proceeding. In a given case, it may  arise  at  the  inception.
There may be unassailable and unimpeachable circumstances  on  record  which
may establish at the outset that the police officer or  public  servant  was
acting in performance of his official duty and  is  entitled  to  protection
given under Section 197 of the Code. It is not possible for us to hold  that
in such a case, the court cannot look into any  documents  produced  by  the
accused or the public servant concerned at the inception. The nature of  the
complaint may have to be kept in mind. It must be remembered  that  previous
sanction is a  precondition  for  taking  cognizance  of  the  offence  and,
therefore, there is no requirement that  the  accused  must  wait  till  the
charges are framed to raise this plea. ...”

In the case before us, the allegation is  that  the  appellant  exceeded  in
exercising his power during investigation of a criminal case  and  assaulted
the respondent in order to extract  some  information  with  regard  to  the
death of one Sannamma, and in that connection, the respondent  was  detained
in the police station for some time. Therefore, the alleged conduct  has  an
essential connection with the discharge of the official duty. Under  Section
197 of CrPC, in case, the Government servant accused of  an  offence,  which
is alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting  to  act
in discharge of his official duty, the previous sanction is necessary.

Going by the factual matrix, it is evident that the  whole
allegation is on police excess in connection with  the  investigation  of  a
criminal case. The said offensive conduct is reasonably connected  with  the
performance of the official duty of the appellant.  Therefore,  the  learned
Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the case without the  previous
sanction of the State Government. The High Court missed this  crucial  point
in the impugned order.
The appeal is hence allowed. The impugned order by the  High  Court  is  set
aside, so also, the proceedings initiated by the Civil  Judge  (Jr.Div)  and
JMFC at Chikkanayakanahalli,  Karnataka  in               C.C.  No.  74/2009
taking cognizance and issuing process to the appellant.  It  is  made  clear
that our judgment is  only  on  the  issue  of  sanction  and  we  have  not
considered the matter on merits and that this judgment shall  not  stand  in
the way of respondent approaching the State Government  for  sanction  under
Section 197 of CrPC. In case such sanction  is  obtained  and  the  same  is
produced before the learned Magistrate, the Magistrate may  proceed  further
in the case in accordance with the law. - 2015 S.C. MSKLAWREPORTS

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.