1. Disappearance of persons — CBI investigation — High Court directions regarding report submission, sanction under Section 197 CrPC, and interim compensation. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 958
2000(7) Supreme 142
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.T. Thomas, D.P. Mohapatra & R.C. Lahoti, JJ.
State of Punjab -Appellant
versus
Vinod Kumar -Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 431-39 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 408 1/8 of 1998
With
Criminal Appeal No. 440 of 2000
(Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1537 of 2000)
Decided on 4-5-2000
Important Points
The Supreme Court clarified that a High Court's direction to 'accord necessary sanction' under Section 197 CrPC should be interpreted as a direction to consider the request for sanction and pass an appropriate order, rather than a mandatory command to grant the sanction.
Subject
Criminal Law - Investigation and Prosecution
Act Referred
Headnote
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 197-Sanction for prosecuting public servant-Direction by High Court to State Government-Alleged disappearance of three persons-Allegation against police officials-High Court giving direction to State Government to give sanction for prosecuting alleged delinquent officials-Direction to pay a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs to wife and children of disappeared persons by way of interim measure-High Courts order did not warrant interference. (Paras 5 to 10)
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
- tort
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to the direction to grant sanction under Section 197 CrPC and disputes regarding the adequacy of sanction for specific IPC offences. (Para 3 , 5 , 6 )
3. Validity of sanction is a matter for the trial court; interim compensation does not imply a finding of fact regarding liability. (Para 5 , 6 , 9 )
4. A direction to accord sanction under Section 197 CrPC is interpreted as a direction to consider the request and pass an appropriate order. (Para 7 )
5. High Court direction to accord sanction recast as a direction to consider the request; appeals disposed of. (Para 7 , 10 )
6. How should a judicial direction to the State Government to accord sanction under Section 197 CrPC be interpreted?
Such a direction should be interpreted as requiring the State Government to consider the question of according sanction and pass an appropriate order thereon, rather than a mandatory command to grant the sanction. (Para 7 )
7. When is the question of deciding the grant of compensation typically addressed in cases involving delinquent officers?
The decision regarding the grant of compensation arises only after the trial court enters upon a finding regarding the liability to be fixed on the delinquent officers. (Para 9 )
8. Does the award of interim compensation by a court imply a finding of fact regarding the liability of the accused?
No, an interim compensation award made without prejudice to the right of claimants to seek further compensation does not constitute a finding of fact that would prejudice the trial court. (Para 8 , 9 )
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. Leave Single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court while hearing Writ Petitions filed in respect of the alleged disappearance of three persons (Vinod Kumar, Ashok Kumar and Mukhtiar Singh) passed certain directions in the impugned judgment. Investigation of the case was already ordered to be entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The directions are these :
1. The investigation report shall be submitted within one month before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala and not before the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Ludhiana.
2. The State Government shall accord necessary sanction as provided under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without any delay when asked by the Central Bureau of Investigation (to whom the investigation had been entrusted).
3. By way of an interim measure State Government was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 (two lakhs) each to the wife and children of Ashok Kumar and Mukhtiar Singh within one month from the date of the judgment. It was made clear that such payment shall be made without prejudice to the right of those persons to claim compensation against the State or any other person who may be found ultimately responsible in the matter.
3. The State of Punjab has filed Special Leave Petitions in challenge of the second direction mentioned above. One Ashok Kumar has filed the Special Leave Petition against denying ex-gratia compensation to him as he was also illegally detained according to him.
4. As matters progressed much after filing of the Special Leave Petitions major part of the challenge in these Special Leave Petitions has become infructuous. For example, pursuant to an interim order passed by this Court directing the Government to consider and pass appropriate orders regarding sanction to be accorded for prosecution of the persons against whom accusations had been made by those who moved the High Court, an order has been passed by the Governor of Punjab on 7.2.1998. That order states thus :
"Sanction is hereby accorded under Section 197 Cr.P.C. for the prosecution of S/Sh. S.S. Saini, IPS, the then S.S.P/Ludhiana, S.S. Sandhu, the then S.P./Ludhiana, Inspector Paramjit Singh, the then S.H.O., P.S. Focal Point, Ludhiana and Inspector B.C. Tiwari, the then S.H.O. Kotwali Ludhiana, for offences under Section 120 B, IPC read with Sections 342, 343 and 365, IPC and Sections 342, 343 and 365 IPC in case RC 2131/94-SIU.V./CBI/? Delhi registered by the C.B.I. on April 18, 1994."
5. The said order has been brought to our notice by Sh. Altaf Ahmad, learned Additional Solicitor General arguing for the C.B.I. Two rival contentions have been raised before us in respect of the said sanction. First is that no sanction should have been accorded by the State Government at all in respect of those offences. The other is that sanction accorded was too insufficient as the State Government should have granted sanction in respect of other offences including Section 364 of the IPC. We do not wish to express any opinion on such contentions, for, the adequacy, validity and need for sanction etc. are matters which the respective parties can raise before the trial Court at the appropriate stage. Any observation which we may make on the merits of such contentions is likely to cause prejudice to one or the other side and therefore we choose to refrain from making such observations.
6. Ms. Lata Krishnamurti, learned Counsel submitted that the offence under Section 364 of the IPC could be established despite the non-mention of that offence either in the investigation records or in the sanction order. On this aspect Sh. Altaf Ahmad, learned Additional Solicitor General reported to us that in the final report which CBI would be submitting before the Court, the offence under Section 364 IPC would also be included. Both Sh. P.P. Rao and Sh. D.D. Thakur vehemently, contended that the offence under Section 364 cannot stand by any stretch of imagina
