Back
1990 Supreme(AP) 427
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : I.P.RAO, M.N.RAO, N.D.PATNAIK
Advocate General, A.P., Hyderabad - Appellant
Versus
Rachapudi Subba Rao - Respondent
Decided On : 11-12-90
A High Court judge is not an employee of the State Government or Central Government and is not employed exclusively either in connection with the affairs of the Union or in connection with the affairs of the State. The High Court and its Judges constitute a wing of the State. Hence, u/ S. 197 Cr. P. C. , neither the Central nor the State Government can grant previous sanction envisaged by S. 197 (1) Cr. P. C.
Headnote:
Whether sanction of the Central Government under S. 197 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a condition precedent for a court to take cognizance of an offence alleged in a private complaint against a judge of the High Court in respect of his acts in the discharge of judicial functions.
Fact of the Case:
A Division Bench of the High Court comprising the Hon'ble Chief Justice B. J. Divan and Raghuvir, J. (as he then was), in Crl. R. C. Nos. 534 and 523 of 1976, expressed the view that sanction of the Central Government under S. 197 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, is a necessary pre-condition for instituting criminal proceedings against a judge of the High Court by a person claiming to be aggrieved in respect of the judicial decisions rendered by the judge.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that a High Court judge is not an employee of the State Government or Central Government and is not employed exclusively either in connection with the affairs of the Union or in connection with the affairs of the State. The High Court and its Judges constitute a wing of the State. Hence, u/ S. 197 Cr. P. C. , neither the Central nor the State Government can grant previous sanction envisaged by S. 197 (1) Cr. P. C. In our view the Constitution makes a special provision in Art. 124 in regard to High Court Judges. There is no other mode by which the discharge of judicial functions of a High Court Judge could be called in question. Neither a civil action nor a criminal complaint can be instituted against him by any person aggrieved in respect of the discharge of judicial functions. The Constitution, in our view, does not place the High Court Judge in the discharge of judicial functions at the mercy of the State Government or Central Government to save him from prosecution in a criminal Court by vesting them with the power to accord or refuse sanction u/s. 197 Cr. P. C. Art. 124 by implication gives a constitutional protection. In the earlier pronouncement of this Court, this aspect has not received consideration and, in our opinion, the view that a complaint could be lodged against a Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in respect of discharge of his judicial functions with the previous sanction envisaged by S. 197 (1) Cr. P. C. requires reconsideration by a Full Bench.
Issues: Whether sanction of the Central Government under S. 197 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a condition precedent for a court to take cognizance of an offence alleged in a private complaint against a judge of the High Court in respect of his acts in the discharge of judicial functions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a High Court judge is not an employee of the State Government or Central Government and is not employed exclusively either in connection with the affairs of the Union or in connection with the affairs of the State. The High Court and its Judges constitute a wing of the State. Hence, u/ S. 197 Cr. P. C. , neither the Central nor the State Government can grant previous sanction envisaged by S. 197 (1) Cr. P. C. In our view the Constitution makes a special provision in Art. 124 in regard to High Court Judges. There is no other mode by which the discharge of judicial functions of a High Court Judge could be called in question. Neither a civil action nor a criminal complaint can be instituted against him by any person aggrieved in respect of the discharge of judicial functions. The Constitution, in our view, does not place the High Court Judge in the discharge of judicial functions at the mercy of the State Government or Central Government to save him from prosecution in a criminal Court by vesting them with the power to accord or refuse sanction u/s. 197 Cr. P. C. Art. 124 by implication gives a constitutional protection. In the earlier pronouncement of this Court, this aspect has not received consideration and, in our opinion, the view that a complaint could be lodged against a Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in respect of discharge of his judicial functions with the previous sanction envisaged by S. 197 (1) Cr. P. C. requires reconsideration by a Full Bench.
Final Decision: The court held that sanction of the Central Government under S. 197 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not a condition precedent for a court to take cognizance of an offence alleged in a private complaint against a judge of the High Court in respect of his acts in the discharge of judicial functions.
( 1 ) THIS is the second Full Bench to hear these contempt cases. In 1987 a Full Bench of this Court presided over by P. A. Choudary, J. heard these cases. The hearing was completed on 6-7-87 and judgment was reserved. Nearly one year thereafter on 1-7-88 the learned presiding judge laid down the office on attaining the age of 62 years without convening the Full Bench for delivering the judgment. Because of this unfortunate situation this Full Bench has again been constituted by the Hon ble the Chief Justice.
( 2 ) DEALING with the question whether sanction of the Central Government under S. 197 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a condition precedent for a court to take cognizance of an offence alleged in a private complaint against a judge of the High Court in respect of his acts in the discharge of judicial functions, a Division Bench of this Court comprising the Hon ble Chief Justice B. J. Divan and Raghuvir, J. (as he then was), in Crl. R. C. No. 534 and 523 of 1976 dated 19-8-1976, expressed the view :". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . U/s. 197 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, no court can take cognizance of an offence alleged to have been committed by a judge of the High Court while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties except with the sanction given by the Central Government. "a later Division Bench consisting of Madhava Reddy (as he then was) and P. A. Choudary JJ. in Contempt case Nos. 27, 29 and 31 of 1977, dealing with an identical question, after noticing the relevant provisions in the Constitution of India, the Indian Penal Code, the Criminal Procedure Code, the Judicial Officers Protection Act and the Contempt of Courts Act, came to the conclusion that : ". . . . . . . . . . . . . . a Judge of the High Court discharging judicial functions, in our opinion, is not an employee of the State Government or Central Government and is not employed exclusively either in connection with the affairs of the Union or in connection with the affairs of the State. The High Court and its Judges constitute a wing of the State. Hence, u/ S. 197 Cr. P. C. , neither the Central nor the State Government can grant previous sanction envisaged by S. 197 (1) Cr. P. C. In our view the Constitution makes a special provision in Art. 124 in regard to High Court Judges. There is no other mode by which the discharge of judicial functions of a High Court Judge could be called in question. Neither a civil action nor a criminal complaint can be instituted against him by any person aggrieved in respect of the discharge of judicial functions. The Constitution, in our view, does not place the High Court Judge in the discharge of judicial functions at the mercy of the State Government or Central Government to save him from prosecution in a criminal Court by vesting them with the power to accord or refuse sanction u/s. 197 Cr. P. C. Art. 124 by implication gives a constitutional protection. In the earlier pronouncement of this Court, this aspect has not received consideration and, in our opinion, the view that a complaint could be lodged against a Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in respect of discharge of his judicial functions with the previous sanction envisaged by S. 197 (1) Cr. P. C. requires reconsideration by a Full Bench. " the Division Bench, on the main question Whether the contemner, R. Subba Rao, was guilty of the alleged acts of contempt has recorded a finding that he had committed criminal contempt u/s. 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act.
( 3 ) IN brief the allegations against the contemner, Subba Rao, are that he issued notices to certain judges of this Court threatening them with civil action for damages if they refused to pay the amounts claimed by him in the suit notices, and he also filed private complaints in criminal courts under Ss. 218, 219 and 220 Cr. P. C. , against the judges. So far as the merits of the allegations levelled against the contemner are con
