SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(SC) 807

2000(3) Supreme 358
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Patna High Court)
K.T. Thomas & D.P. Mohapatra, JJ.
Gauri Shankar Prasad -Appellant
versus
State of Bihar & Anr. -Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 379 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2749 of 1999)
Decided on 19-4-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Sunil Kumar, Dr. Sumant Bhardwaj, Y.R. Mishra, Ms. Mridula Ray Bhardwaj, B.B. Singh, S.V. Deshpande, Advocates.

Headnote:Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 197-Prosecution of Judges and public servant-Sanction for-Divisional Magistrate removing encroachment of Government land-Complaint against him alleging illmotive-No sanction under Section 197 obtained-Magistrate taking cognizance of offence under Sections 323, 504 and 452 IPC-High Court dismissing petition to quash complaint on ground there was no nexus between official duty and offence complained against-Unsustainable-Presence of Subdivisional Magistrate at place of occurrence in his official capacity-Acts complained of by complainant have reasonable nexus with official duty-Appellant entitled to immunity from criminal proceedings without sanction provided under Section 197.

        Section 197 Cr.P.C. affords protection to a judge or magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government against any offence which is alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. The protection is provided in the form that no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or State Government as the case may be. The object of the section is to gave officials from vexatious proceedings against judges, magistrates and public servant but it is no part of the policy to set an official above the common law. If he commits an offence not connected with his official duty he has no privilege. But if one of his offical acts is alleged to be an offence, the State will not allow him to be prosecuted without its sanction. Section 197 embodies one of the exceptions to the general rules laid down in section 190 Cr.P.C., that any offence may be taken cognizance of by the Magistrates enumerated therein. Before this section can be invoked in the case of a public servant two conditions must be satisfied i.e. (1) that the accused was a public servant who was removable from his office only with the sanction of the State Government or the Central Government; and (2) he must be accused of an offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. (Para 7)

       In the case in hand it is manifest that the appellant was present at the place of occurrence in his offical capacity as Sub Divisional Magistrate for the purpose of removal of encroachment from government land and in exercise of such duty, he is alleged to have committed the acts which form the gravamen of the allegations contained in the complaint lodged by the respondent. In such circumstances, it cannot but be held that the acts complained of by the respondent against the appellant have a reasonable nexus with the official duty of the appellant. It follows, therefore, that the appellant is entitled to the immunity from criminal proceedings without sanction provided under Section 197 Cr. P.C. Therefore, the High Court erred in holding that Section 197 Cr.P.C. is not applicable in the case. (Para 13)

       

JUDGMENT

D.P. Mohapatra, J.-Leave granted.

2. The short question that arises for determination in this case is whether on the allegations made in the complaint and the materials available on record, Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is applicable to the case? The High Court of Patna having answered the question in the negative the accused has filed this appeal challenging the order.

3. The factual matrix giving rise to the proceeding may be stated thus:

The appellant Gauri Shankar Prasad was the Sub-Divisional Officer at Naugachia on 12.8.1996. In pursuance of an order of the Patna High Court in a public interest litigation that encroachments from road and roadside lands and unauthorised structures should be removed, the national highway division of the Public Works Department under the supervision of the appellant carried out operations for removal of encroachments according to the programme decided in a meeting of the officers of the departments concerned. In course of the drive undertaken for removal of encroachments on roadside lands the respondent was asked to remove a portion of the boundary wall which according to the measurements made by the officials of the PWD had encroached upon roadside land. When the appellant and the other officials tried to remove the encroachments on 12.8.1996, the respondent objected/protested against such action and filed a complaint in the Court of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Maugachia which was registered as complaint No. 129 of 1996.

4. The averments made in the complaint which are material for the present purpose are as follows:

"That the residential-cum-clinic of the complainant and his wife is situated over cadestral Plot Nos. 2074 and 2072 constructed in or about the year 1973 to 1975 surrounding with boundary walls and the public road possesses through just in the side of the boundary wall of aforesaid residence of the complaint.

That it is also fit to be submitted that previously the accused maliciously took steps for cancellation of Arms Dealer s License in the name of the son of the complainant but the accused could not succeed in his nefarious game.

That recently the accused became active against the complainant in the garb and pretence of removal of public land encroachment movement and on false measurement knowingly and intentionally got a red mark fixed on the boundary wall of the complainant in the name of alleged encroachment of the road.

That the complainant in a bona fide way sent a notice u/s 80 C.P.C. to the Collector Bhagalpur complaining against the so called alleged encroachment.

That on the completion of the period in the notice the complainant filed a suit in the court of Munsif Naugachia, bearing suit No. 68/96 for issue of permanent injunction against the State of Bihar through collector and S.D.M. Naugachia and there is also petition for issue of ad-interim injunction which is to put up for hearing.

That on the date and time of above mentioned occurrence and accused Gauri Shankar Prasad along with large number of labourers and constables came to the premises of the complainant and started the works of demolition whereupon the family members of the complainant requested the accused first to see the complainant who was at that time treating the patients in his clinic along with his wife Dr. Bimla Roy.

That thereupon the accused Sri Gouri Shankar Prasad along with 10-11 constables rused into the clinic and started abusing the filthy language thereupon the complainant protested and the accuse took away the licence gun of the complainant which was therein a room in the side of clinic and accused Gouri Shankar Prasad further ordered to drag out the complainant from the clinic and the constable obeyed the order and the constables dragged the complainant out who is a man of one leg and automatically he fell down.

That subsequently the complainant has been informed that the pucca gate boundary walls Isolation ward, Gairaz and cow-shed, all have been demolished ille























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top