The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for sanction under Section 197 of the Code before proceeding against a public servant in relation to the discharge of official duty.

1. By this application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the accused in Regular Criminal Complaint Case No.75/2011 has challenged the order issuing process on the complaint filed by non-applicant No.1.

2. Brief facts relevant are that non-applicant no.1 on 13-3-2011 lodged a report alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Prevention of Atrocities to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 (for short, the said Act). According to non-applicant no.1, he was working as a clerk in the college run by the persons accused therein. It was his grievance that on 12-3-2011 the said persons had abused the non-applicant no.1 in the matter of his caste. Pursuant thereto the statement of the non-applicant no.1 came to be recorded on 14-3-2011 by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer. As the said Sub-Divisional Police Officer was on leave, the applicant herein was directed to investigate the offence. On 24-3-2011, the applicant visited the office of the concerned college and directed non-applicant no.1 to remain present for recording his supplementary statement. Accordingly, on 30-3-2011 the applicant recorded supplementary statement of non-applicant No. l. Thereafter on 13-4-2011, the non-applicant no.1 issued a letter to the applicant in which it was stated that though the non-applicant no.1 had stated that he desired to continue with his earlier statement recorded on 14-3-2011, the applicant recorded his supplementary statement. Though a period of fourteen days had passed, the said statement was not given to non-applicant no.1 for its perusal.

3. Thereafter on 30-4-2011, the non-applicant no.1 filed a complaint against the applicant for the offence punishable under provisions of Section 3(ii)(vi) and Section 4 of the said Act along with Sections 217, 406, 463, 467 and 471 of the Penal Code. According to non-applicant no.1, the supplementary statement dated 30-3-2011 was not of the complainant and that it was not recorded according to his say. This according to non-applicant no.1 resulted in commission of offence punishable under said provisions. In the said complaint, the statement of the non-applicant no.1 was recorded. On that basis, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class was pleased to issue process against the applicant for the offence punishable under the aforesaid provisions. The applicant challenged this order dated 24-6-2011 passed by the learned Magistrate before the Sessions Court. By judgment dated 19-9-2011, the learned Judge of the Sessions Court was pleased to maintain the order issuing process under Sections 217, 463, 467 and 471 of the Penal Code. However, the order issuing process under the provisions of the Act of 1989 was set aside. Being aggrieved the applicant has preferred the present criminal application.

4. Shri A. S. Mardikar, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submitted that in the absence of any valid sanction under Section 197 of the Code the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the alleged offence. It was submitted that the allegations made against the applicant were with regard to his alleged commission/omission while recording the supplementary statement of non-applicant no.1 on 30-3-2011. The applicant had recorded that statement while performing his duties as the Investigating Officer. The act of recording this statement was in discharge of his official duty and therefore the applicant was entitled for statutory protection in that regard. The duty of investigating the offence and recording the statement of the complainant was interlinked with the discharge of official work and there could be no segregation of the two aspects. The applicant had not done anything which was not beyond the duty of the Investigating Officer and therefore the complainant ought to have obtained sanction under Section 197 of the Code before proceeding against him. In that regard the learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the decisi