SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1970 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 17

BOMBAY HIGH COURT
, J
Namdeo Kashinath Aher v. H.G. Vartak


Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R. Jethmalani
For the Respondents: Rajani Patel

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

























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top