The protection of section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code extends to public servants who are acting in discharge of their official duties or purported discharge of their official duties, even if the act exceeds what is strictly necessary for the discharge of the duty.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 197 - SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION OF PUBLIC SERVANT - ACTING IN DISCHARGE OF OFFICIAL DUTIES - INTERPRETATION - SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY - COURT'S ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION - PROTECTION OF PUBLIC SERVANTS FROM PROSECUTION WITHOUT PRIOR SANCTION - DISTINCTION BETWEEN OFFICIAL DUTIES AND PURPORTED DISCHARGE OF OFFICIAL DUTIES - NEXUS BETWEEN ACT AND OFFICIAL DUTY - CASE OF POLICE INSPECTOR REFUSING BAIL TO ACCUSED IN BAILABLE OFFENCE - HELD, ACT PROTECTED UNDER SECTION 197.
Fact of the Case:

A Police Inspector (petitioner) refused bail to an accused (respondent) arrested for a bailable offence, despite the accused's willingness to furnish security. The accused filed a complaint against the Police Inspector for offences under sections 220 of the Indian Penal Code and 147(c) of the Bombay Police Act, alleging that the Police Inspector acted corruptly and maliciously in keeping him in confinement contrary to law. The trial court and the sessions court discharged the other accused persons, holding that they were acting in discharge of their official duties, but rejected the Police Inspector's application for discharge, finding that his acts were not in discharge of his official duties.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the Police Inspector's act of refusing bail to the accused was so interrelated with the arrest, which was done in discharge of official duties, that the necessary protection of section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code could be availed by the Police Inspector. The court found that the Police Inspector was acting in the purported discharge of his official duties and that the acts complained of had a direct nexus with the discharge of his official duties.
Issues: 1. Whether the Police Inspector's act of refusing bail to the accused was in discharge of his official duties or purported discharge of his official duties. 2. Whether the Police Inspector was entitled to the protection of section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which requires prior sanction for prosecution of public servants.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the act of refusing bail to the accused was so interrelated with the arrest, which was done in discharge of official duties, that the necessary protection of section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code could be availed by the Police Inspector. 2. The court found that the Police Inspector was acting in the purported discharge of his official duties and that the acts complained of had a direct nexus with the discharge of his official duties. Therefore, the Police Inspector was entitled to the protection of section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Final Decision: The High Court quashed the impugned orders of the trial court and the sessions court and discharged the Police Inspector from the prosecution launched against him on the basis of the complaint filed by the accused.

JUDGMENT - S.W. PURANIK, J.:---This petition invokes the extraordinary powers of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and also invokes the inherent powers of this Court under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to prevent an apparent miscarriage of justice and gross abuse of the process of the Court. The order of the Sessions Judge, Yeotmal in Criminal Revision Application No. 104/84 dated 6-4-1985 confirming the order passed by judicial Magistrate, First Class, in Criminal Case No. 10/83 dated 11-9-1984 passed below Exts. 21 and 22 is impugned in this petition. Ex. 21 is the application filed by the petitioner as accused No. 1 before the trial court and Ex. 22 is another application filed by the other accused Nos. 2 to 5, who are not parties in this petition, before the trial Court contending that they cannot be prosecuted in the complaint case without obtaining prior sanction under section 197, Criminal Procedure Code. The trial Court allowed the application Ex. 22 filed on behalf of the accused Nos. 2 to 5 and discharged them for want of necessary sanction under section 197, Criminal Procedure Code. However, he rejected the application of the petitioner accused No. 1. This order of the trial Court was confirmed by the sessions judge in Revision. Brief facts may be narrated as follows. The same are extracted from the order of the trial Court in Paragraphs 2 to 6.

"2. That the complainant is a Police Patil of village Lakh (Rayaji). That the M.L.A.'s belonging to ruling party, Shri Nanabhau Embadwar and Shri Sudhakrrao Dhurwe are on inimical terms with the complainant; that they exerted under pressure on all the accused persons and got some false offence registered against him. That they were also bribed by Shri Haribhau Raut, who is from the group of the above said M.L.A.'s, and that for all these reasons on 19-7-1982 at about 1 a.m. the accused No. 3 came to his house and informed him that he was called by the accused No. 1. That, after some time, accused No. 1 came along with accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5 and informed the complainant that he was being arrested on the complaint of accused Nos. 3 to 5. Accordingly, the complainant was arrested. The accused No. 1 then directed accused No. 2 to take the complainant to Police Station, Digras. Accordingly, accused No. 2 brought him to the Police Station in the Jeep. That, in the Police Station the complainant come to know that the offence under sections 147, 148, 352, 353 and 506 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code came to be registered against him on the complaint of accused Nos. 3 to 5. That, all these offences are bailable and hence he requested accused No. 2 to release him on bail and that he was prepared to furnish proper surety. That the accused No. 2 at that time informed the complainant that he was under instructions from accused No. 1 not to enlarge him on bail. Thereafter one Shankar Manik contacted accused No. 1 and requested him to released the complainant on bail but the accused No. 1 blatantly refused to oblige him. It is a specific allegation that the accused No. 1 refused to enlarge the complainant on bail because he was heavily bribed by Shri Haribhau Raut and also because of the political pressure brought on him by Shri Sudhakarrao Dhurwe sitting M.L.A. from Digras. It is also alleged that accused Nos. 3 to 5 were also bribed by the said Haribhau and therefore, they lodged the false report against the complainant, on the strength of which the complainant was arrested.

3. It is averred that the accused Nos. 1 to 5 arrested the accused without any justification and that while detaining him in the Police Custody they were acting in concert with each other. That the accused Nos. 2 to 5 were also talking amongst themselves that due to the detention "Rubab" of the complainant had come down.

4. It is further alleged by the complainant that the accused Nos. 1 and 3 are responsible Police Officers, who are supposed to know the provisions o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis