Protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is limited to acts reasonably connected with official duties; petitioners failed to establish such a connection.

Order

18/01/2024

1. All these petitions are preferred by petitioners aggrieved from order dated 31.03.2023, 28.04.2023, 17.08.2022 and 22.09.2022 passed by Special Judge (CBI Cases) No.3, Jaipur Metro-I whereby petitioners were framed for offence in different FIRs, and the details are as under:

2. As the matter pertains to same petitioners and similar charges, therefore this court is passing a common order in all revision petitions and all are tagged together.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners while relying upon grounds of petitions submitted that petitioners are government servants and they are entitled for protection as public servant. He further submitted that total 18 FIRs were registered on the basis of false and concocted story and after investigation by local police, these matters were transferred to CBI. He further submitted that the petitioner No.1 is government servant working as Patwari and petitioner No.2 was a government servant and had already superannuated. He submitted that the alleged acts were committed in furtherance of public duty assigned to them so they are entitled for protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. He further submitted that petitioners are working at lower level and are duty bound to follow the instructions of their superior officials. The petitioners have to follow commands of senior and controlling officer therefore petitioners have not committed any error while discharging official duty. He further submitted that no specific evidence were collected to implicate the petitioners for fabrication of alleged forged document. He also submitted that trial court has not considered the fact that there were no evidence against the petitioners and they were not involved in any manner.

4. He further submitted that to prosecute public servant a previous sanction is required but in instant case sanction was not obtained therefore the entire prosecution is suffering from inherent defects but the trial court has failed to consider the same. He also submitted that without considering the impact of statement of Ranjit Singh recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. who was granted pardon under Section 306 Cr.P.C., the trial court has framed charges against the petitioners on the basis of statement of Ranjit Singh. He also submitted that statement of Ranjit Singh cannot be read against the petitioners unless there is some corroboration. He also submitted that trial court has framed charges on surmises and conjectures and not on the basis of facts available on record. He also submitted that it is settled proposition that the trial court shall consider the case under Section 227 Cr.p.C. for discharge but if there are no ground to discharge then only it can proceed to frame charges under Section 228 Cr.P.C. He submitted that from charge-sheet the fact was established that at the instance of Tehsildar the mutation entries were recorded.

5. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI.

6. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI and perused the record.

7. A perusal of impugned order indicated that the petitioners were charged for the offence under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ). Herein the prosecution sanction was not obtained befo