IMPORTANT POINT
Where the accused is a public servant and the alleged act has been done by him in discharge of official duty, for his prosecution sanction under Section 197 Cr. P.C. is mandatory.

Headnote:(a) Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss 420/34 & Madhya Pradesh (Recognized Examination) Act, 1937 ¯ Appellant running a coaching centre demanding Rs. 50,000/- from each students for giving them questions papers for premedical tests ¯ On matter bring reported to Collector of the District, in raid arranged by the Collector and conducted at the house of the appellant on 8th June 1992 amount of Rs. 20000/- including the marked currency notes recovered from his house ¯ In criminal case registered under the aforesaid penal sections, the appellant was brought to the police station in handcuffs and his photographs in handcuffs appeared in the local newspapers ¯ After trial the trial Court acquitting the appellant on August 26, 2004 ¯ During trial the appellant filing complaint against the Collector Jabalpur and other Government functionaries named as accused in the case under Sections 395, 468, 469/34 IPC, which was based on the raid conducted by the Collector along with police officials at his house on June 8, 1992 ¯ Trial Magistrate dismissing the complaint for want of sanction under Section 197 Cr. P.C. ¯ In revision filed by the appellant Sessions Judge allowing the revision and passing order for the registration of the case ¯ In miscellaneous case the High Court finding that the complaint being against public servants was not maintainable in the absence of sanction under Section 197 Cr. P.C. ¯ Appellant filing SLP before Supreme Court which was dismissed in limine ¯ Thereafter appellant moving application before State Government for sanction under Section 197 Cr. P.C. which was refused ¯ The appellant filing writ before the High Court challenging the refusal of section, which was dismissed by the High Court, review filed was also dismissed ¯ The intra Court appeal filed by the appellant was also dismissed ¯ Hence this appeal ¯ The Supreme Court held that the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court was proper ¯ The view taken by the High Court was unexceptionable and did not warrant interference.
        The appellant after acquittal in the criminal case filing writ petition before the High Court contending that while he was being taken to the Police station and was kept there in custody in the night of June 8, 1992, he was handcuffed by the police without there being any valid reason ¯ A number of daily newspapers published his photographs and on seeing his photograph in handcuffs his elder sister, who loved him like a son, was so shocked that she expired on June 17, 1992 ¯ Appellant also contending that there was delay in trial and causing great harm to his dignity and reputation violating Art 21 of the Constitution ¯ Single Judge dismissing the writ petition holding that there was no delay in trial ¯ In intra Court appeal, the Division Bench held that there was delay in trial as the State did not take timely steps to summon the witnesses ¯ Further there was no warrant for putting the appellant under handcuffs. His handcuffing was without justification and it had not only adversely affected his dignity as a human being but had also led to unfortunate and tragic consequences ¯ Division Bench of the High Court awarded Rs.70,000/- as compensation to the appeal ¯ In appeal the Supreme Court increased the compensation from Rs. 70,000/- to Rs. 2,00,000/-
        (b) Criminal Procedure Code, I973¯Section 197¯ Sanction for prosecution ¯ Where the accused is a public servant and the alleged act has been done by him in discharge of official duty, for his prosecution sanction under Section 197 Cr. P.C. is mandatory. (Para 8)
        (c) Constitution of India Art 21 ¯ Speedy trial ¯ Hand Cuff ¯ In connection with the criminal case registered against the appellant, the appellant was taken to the police station, he was handcuffed for which there was no valid reason ¯ A number of photographs published in newspaper ¯ There was delay in trial, which could have been avoided if the police had taken timely steps ¯ A sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- awarded as compensation to the appellant accused. (Para 16)
       Facts of the case
        Appellant running a coaching centre demanding Rs. 50,000/- from each students for giving them questions papers for premedical tests ¯ On matter bring reported to Collector of the District, in raid arranged by the Collector being conducted at the house of the appellant on 8th June 1992 amount of Rs. 20000/- including the marked currency notes recovered from his house ¯ In criminal case registered under the aforesaid penal sections, the appellant was brought to the police station in handcuffs and his photographs in handcuffs appeared in the local newspapers ¯ After trial the trial Court acquitting the appellant on August 26, 2004 ¯ During trial the appellant filing complaint against the Collector Jabalpur and other Government functionaries named as accused in the case under Sections 395, 468, 469/34 IPC, which was based on the raid conducted by the Collector along with police officials at his house on June 8, 1992 ¯ Trial Magistrate dismissing the complaint for want of sanction under Section 197 Cr. P.C. ¯ In revision filed by the appellant Sessions Judge allowing the revision and passing order for the registration of the case ¯ In miscellaneous case the High Court finding the complaint being against public servants was not maintainable in the absence of sanction under Section 197 Cr. P.C. ¯ Appellant filing SLP before Supreme Court which was dismissed in limine ¯ Thereafter appellant moving application before State Government for section under Section 197 Cr. P.C. which was refused ¯ The appellant filing writ before the High Court challenging the refusal of section, which was dismissed by the High Court, review filed was also dismissed ¯ The intra Court appeal filed by the was also dismissed ¯ Hence this appeal.
       Findings
        The Supreme Court held that the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court was proper ¯ The view taken by the High Court was unexceptionable and did not warrant interference ¯ For the prosecution of the accused sanction under Section 197 Cr. P.C. was necessary, in the absence of which the dismissal of the complaint was proper ¯ There was delay in the trial of the case, further the accused was taken to police station handcuffed, the photographs of which was published in the newspapers ¯ The Supreme Court enhance the compensation from Rs.70,000/- to Rs. 2,00,000/- lacs.

JUDGMENT

Aftab Alam,J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These two appeals are filed against orders passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in two separate cases though arising from the same set of facts.

3. The appellant, Hardeep Singh was engaged in running a coaching centre, called “Deepika Classes” where students were given tuition to prepare them for entrance tests for different professional courses. On June 8, 1992, it was reported to the Collector, Jabalpur, Raghav Chandra that the appellant had asked some of his students to pay him Rs.50,000/- for giving them the question papers for the pre-medical test in three subjects. The Collector decided to set up a trap for catching the appellant. The complainant before the Collector had with him only Rs.10,000/- at that time. The Collector, therefore, called the City Magistrate and instructed him to take out Rs.10,000/- from the Collectorate Nazarat. The currency notes taken out from the Nazarat were marked and the decoy was sent to pay to the appellant Rs.20,000/-, including the money taken out from the Nazarat. Then a raid was conducted at the house of the appellant in which Rs. 20,000/- with the marked currency notes of Rs.10,000/- were recovered. The appellant was arrested and a criminal case (Criminal case No. 314 of 2004) was instituted against him under Section 420 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of The [Madhya Pradesh] Recognized Examinations Act, 1937. He was brought to the police station in handcuffs and his photographs in handcuffs appeared in the local newspapers. The police submitted charge sheet in the case on the basis of which the appellant was put up on trial. The trial went on, as is not uncommon in this country for several years at the end of which he was acquitted on August 26, 2004.

4. Even while facing the trial, the appellant filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Jabalpur (which was registered as Criminal Case No.66/2000) alleging that the Collector Raghav Chandra and other Government functionaries, named as accused in the complaint had committed offences punishable under Sections 395, 468, 469 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant’s complaint was also based on the raid conducted by the Collector along with the police officials at his house on June 8, 1992. The learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint for want of sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Against the order dismissing the complaint, the appellant moved the Sessions Court in revision. The revision was allowed and as directed by the Sessions Court the appellant’s complaint came to be registered.

5. The accused in the complaint filed by the appellant then moved the High Court in a quashing application (Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.1676/2000) and the High Court by order dated September 17, 2002 allowed the application holding that the complaint was not maintainable against the public servants in the absence of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. The appellant challenged the order of the High Court before this Court in SLP(C) No.179/2003, but it was dismissed in limine.

6. The appellant, then, moved the State Government for grant of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. for prosecution of Raghav Chandra and the other Government officers named as accused in his complaint. The State Government, however, refused to give sanction and rejected his application by order dated December 12, 2006.

7. The appellant challenged the Government order in a Writ Petition (Writ Petition No.4777 of 2007) before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The Writ Petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the court by order dated August 31, 2007. The appellant, then, filed a review petition (M.C.C. No.2324/2007) but that too was dismissed by order dated May 10, 2007. The appellant, then, preferred an intra-court appeal (W.A. No.1682/2007) which after due consideration by a Division Bench of the High Court was dismissed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2011 Supreme(SC) 1120

IMPORTANT POINT Where the accused is a public servant and the alleged act has been done by him in discharge of official duty, for his prosecution sanction under Section 197 Cr. P.C. is mandatory.

IMPORTANT POINT
Where the accused is a public servant and the alleged act has been done by him in discharge of official duty, for his prosecution sanction under Section 197 Cr. P.C. is mandatory.