BOMBAY HIGH COURT
, J
Namdeo Kashinath Aher v. H.G. Vartak
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. scope of s.197 cr.p.c and complaint details. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. requirements for protection under s.197, cr.p.c. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. interpretation of acting in official capacity. (Para 5 , 6 , 8) |
| 4. connection required for protection under s.197. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. limitations on s.197 protection for public servants. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 6. broader interpretation and its implications. (Para 13 , 14 , 19) |
| 7. differentiating cases for s.197 claims. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 8. conclusion and rejection of the reference. (Para 18 , 20) |
1. The short point that arises for consideration in this Reference is as to the precise scope of S.197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and whether in the circumstances of this case cognizance of the complaint under S.500, Indian Penal Code , could have been taken by the Magistrate in the absence of sanction by the State Government. The learned Magistrate held that he could. The II Addl. Sess. Judge, Thana, however, ruled otherwise and has made this Reference under S.438, Cr. P. C.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present Reference are as follows: The Complainant claims to be an advocate end a member of the Kalyan Municipality and a social worker. On 3-1-19
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.