Source – Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Shadakshari v. State of Karnataka & Anr., has held that Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) is restricted to only those acts or omissions which are done by public servants in the discharge of official duties.

What was the Background of Shadakshari v. State of Karnataka & Anr. Case?

• In this case, the appellant lodged a complaint alleging that the respondent and another were irregularly creating documents of property in the name of dead person despite knowing the fact that those were fake documents, such as, death certificate, family tree of the original successor of land of the appellant etc. for illegal gain.
• The respondent is working as Village Accountant, Kirigdalu Circle in the district of Hassan, Karnataka State.
• Thereafter, the respondent filed a petition before the High Court of Karnataka under Section 482 of CrPC for quashing of the proceedings.
• The High Court quashed the proceedings.
• Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.
• The Supreme Court allowed the appeal.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan observed that Section 197 CrPC does not extend its protective cover to every act or omission of a public servant while in service. It is restricted to only those acts or omissions which are done by public servants in the discharge of official duties.
• It was further held that the prior sanction for prosecution as per Section 197 of CrPC is not required to prosecute a public servant for the act of creating fake documents as the alleged acts do not form a part of his official duty.

What is Section 197 of CrPC?

About:

• Section 197 of CrPC deals with the prosecution of Judges and public servants whereas the same provision has been covered under Section 218 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (BNSS). It states that—

(1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government 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 save as otherwise provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013—

(a) In the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government.

(b) In the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Government.

(2) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Union while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.

(3) The State Government may by notification, direct that the provisions of sub-section (2) shall apply to such class or category of the members of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order as may be specified therein, wherever they may be serving, and thereupon the provisions of that sub-section will apply as if for the expression “Central Government” occurring therein, the expression “State Government” were substituted.

(3A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3), no court shall take cognizance of any offence, alleged to have been committed by any member of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order in a State while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of Article 356 of the Constitution of India, 1950 was in force therein, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.

(3B) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Code or any other law, it is hereby declared that any sanction accorded by the State Government or any cognizance taken by a court upon such sanction, during the period commencing on the 20th day of August, 1991 and ending with the date immediately preceding the date on which the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1991 (43 of 1991), receives the assent of the President, with respect to an offence alleged to have been committed during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force in the State, shall be invalid and it shall be competent for the Central Government in such matter to accord sanction and for the court to take cognizance thereon.

(4) The Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, may determine the person by whom, the manner in which, and the offence or offences for which, the prosecution of such Judge, Magistrate or public servant is to be conducted, and may specify the Court before which the trial is to be held.

Case Law

• In the case of State of Orissa v. Ganesh Chandra Jew, (2004), the Supreme Court held that the protection given under Section 197 of CrPC is to protect responsible public servants against the institution of possibly vexatious criminal proceedings for offences alleged to have been committed by them while they are acting or purporting to act as public servants.