K. L. SHRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 30-9-82 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhar in Criminal Case No. 499 of 1982 holding that for want of sanction under S. 197 (1) (b) of the Cr. P. C. , 1973 (for short 'the Code') cognisance of offences cannot be taken against the non-applicant Harbans Singh Chhabra, Tahsildar Badnawar, District Dhar.

( 2 ) THE circumstances giving rise to the petition are these. The applicant filed a criminal complaint against the non-applicant Harbans Singh and three others for action under the Code in respect of offences under Ss. 448,'219, 219/109, 506 and 427/34, I. P. C. on the ground that the said Harbans Singh in collusion with the other co-accused persons -unauthorisedly issued a notice to him to close the ' ventilator of his residence and despite being told that under the M. P. L. R. Code, 1959, he had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter, got the said ventilator closed.

( 3 ) ON service of summons, the non-applicant Harbans Singh rabed a preliminary objection as to want of sanction as required under S. 197 (1) (b) of the Code against cognizance of offences being taken against, him. The learned trial Magistrate sustained the objection and hence this revision.

( 4 ) THE non-applicant Harbans Singh as Tahsildar is a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government and according to S. 197 (1) (b ) if such a person is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction of the State Government.

( 5 ) THE petitioner's contention is that the acts of the non-applicant Harbans Singh constituting the offences were completely outside the scope of his official duty and, therefore, there was no question of requirement of any sanction and the impugned order deserves to be set aside. Reliance was placed on the decision in Albert West Meads v. The King, AIR 1948 PC 156.

( 6 ) THE contention sought to be canvassed on behalf of the non-applicant Harbans Singh is irrespective of any question of mala fides, as the offences complained of were committed by him purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, sanction under S. 197 (1) (b) of the Code is necessary. Reliance was placed on the decision in A. W. Meads v. Emperor, AIR 1945 FC 21.

( 7 ) IT is in public interest that public servants perform their duty fearlessly. As pointed out in the decision in Kulwant Singh's case (1986 Current Criminal Judgment Note 3) the provision regarding previous sanction being condition precedent for prosecution, affords the public servant the necessary safeguard of security by the Government so that sanction is granted only in deserving cases and vexatious prosecutions are avoided. The right approach to the import of the expression "any offence alleged to have been committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty" lies between the two extremes of construing it too narrowly or too widely. If construed too narrowly the provision would be rendered altogether sterile. It is not the duty so much the Act which requires examination.

( 8 ) SANCTION is not always a pre-condition for prosecution of a public servant even if the act complained of is done by him while he is actually engaged in the performance of his official duty. It is only when the act complained of is directly connected with his official duty that sanction is necessary. It is the quality of the act that is important and if it falls within the scope and range of his official duties, the protection under S. 197 as to previous sanction is attracted. Where the official status only furnishes the accused an occasion or an opportunity of committing the offence, there is no necessity of sanction. In this connection the decision in Baijnath v. State of M. P. , AIR 1966 SC 220

Click Here to Read the rest of this document