NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has said that the safeguard of obtaining prior sanction from the competent authority, as envisaged under Section 197 of the CrPC and Section 170 of the Police Act cannot be rendered nugatory merely because the acts alleged may have exceeded the strict bounds of official duty.
A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma said a mere excess or overreach in the performance of official duty does not, by itself, disentitle a public servant from the statutory protection mandated by law.
Supreme Court Upholds Protection Under CrPC Section 197 for Public Servants
The court dwelled on the importance of sanction while quashing criminal proceedings against two retired police personnel of Bengaluru for allegedly assaulting a man and fabricating cases against him.
The absence of the necessary sanction vitiated the very initiation of criminal proceedings against the accused persons, it said.
No Prosecution Without Sanction Even if Duty Exceeded, Rules SC
"We are of the considered opinion that the allegations levelled against the accused persons, though grave, squarely fall within the ambit of "acts done under colour of, or in excess of, such duty or authority," and “acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty,” as envisaged under Section 170 of the Police Act and Section 197 of the CrPC respectively," the bench said.
The court's judgment came on an appeal filed by G C Manjunath, retired Sub Inspector and Chikkaveerabhadraiah, retired constable, accused of assaulting complainant Seetaram in Mahalakshmi Layout Police Station, Bengaluru.
The court said where there exists even a reasonable link between the act complained of and the official duties of the public servant, the protective umbrella of Section 197 of the CrPC and Section 170 of the Police Act is attracted.
"In such cases, prior sanction assumes the character of a sine qua non, regardless of whether the public servant exceeded the scope of authority or acted improperly while discharging his duty," the bench said.
The High Court has declined to quash the proceedings initiated on a private complaint filed in 2007 for the alleged incident in 1999-2000.
The bench said, "Any action undertaken by a public officer, even if in excess of the authority vested in them or overstepping the confines of their official duty, would nonetheless attract statutory protection, provided there exists a reasonable nexus between the act complained of and the officer’s official functions."
The HC held the accused policemen, three others died during the pendency, exceeded their limits and assaulted the complainant resulting in grave injuries, which cannot be termed as an act done in the discharge of the official duty, so sanction was not necessary.
The court pointed out the underlying rationale of both these statutory provisions is to safeguard public functionaries from frivolous or vexatious prosecution for actions undertaken in good faith in the discharge of, or purported discharge of, their official duties, thereby ensuring that the fear of litigation does not impede the efficient functioning of public administration.
Relying on Virupaxappa Veerappa Kadampur Vs State of Mysore, (1963) and D Devaraja Vs Owais Sabeer Hussain, (2020), the bench said, it has been categorically held that transgression or overstepping of authority does not, by itself, suffice to displace the statutory safeguard of requiring prior government sanction before prosecuting the public servant concerned.
The bench said in the case, the complainant was declared a rowdy sheeter on August 23, 1990. Multiple criminal cases were instituted against the complainant. It is in the course of the investigation of these cases that the instant allegations have been levelled against the accused persons.
The actions attributed to the accused persons emanate from the discharge of their official duties, specifically in connection with the investigation of criminal cases pending against the complainant.
The bench said the court in Bengaluru erred in taking cognisance of the alleged offences against the accused persons without the requisite sanction.
Admittedly, the alleged incident pertains to the period of 1999-2000. Both the accused retired from service in the year 2015 and 2020 and are presently aged 71 years and 64 years old.
In these circumstances, the bench said, "We are of the considered view that no meaningful purpose would be served by prolonging the criminal prosecution against them."
