Free Web Hosting Provider - Web Hosting - E-commerce - High Speed Internet - Free Web Page
Search the Web

Home Up Feedback Contents Search

S 197 CRPC
           BROUGHT  TO YOU  BY   RAJEEV BHATJIWALE

                                                                                                                 

 

                                           

SURESH JAIN V/S AJAY BHUSHAN PANDE 1998 SCC (CRI) 1

sanction for prosecution-- the defence of of Bar against taking cognizance touches the jurisdiction of the court they became the raised at any stage of the sitting the accused is not required to wait till the framing of charges or  cross-examination of prosecution witnesses  he can produce relevant documentary material which can be legally looked into without any  formal proof  to show that acts were committed in discharge of public duties .magistrate is not required to confine himself to the allegations made in the complaint such inquiry is derived from the question whether prima facie offence is made out by the complaint 

MOHD. HADI RAJA  V/S  STATE OF BIHAR 1998 SCC(Cri)1265

Sanction under section 197 is not required for prosecution of officers of government companies or public undertakings even if such companies or undertakings  fall within the definition of state under an article 12. These agencies of the State, though perform some of the function of state, have their own separate entity and cannot be equated with departments directly run by the government.  Therefore actions taken by them, cannot be held to be the actions taken by the State.

STATE OF BIHAR V/S KAMLA PRASAD 1998 S C C (CRI)1374

acting in the discharge of his official  duty --magistrate to consider not only the allegations made in the complaint but also other materials on record.  It is alleged in the  complaint that the accused police officer raided the house of the complainant without warrant, assorted and abused his wife and others and broke away certain articles belonging to him.  It was also on record that the material facts were suppressed by the complainant and some of the allegations were false.  In this circumstance of the case sanction for prosecution was necessary.

SHAMBHOO NATH MISHRA V/S STATE OF U P 1997 S CC (CRI) 677

test for offence committed in discharge of official duty-- act or omission must be integral to the performance of public duty.  Misappropriation of public funds and fabrication of false record is not intolerance of odd in discharge of public duty.  Section and therefore is not necessary.  When the public servant is alleged to have committed the offence of fabrication of record  or misappropriation of public fund it cannot be said that he acted in discharge of his official duties because it is not the official duty of the public servant perforated the false records the official capacity only enables him to fabricated the record or misappropriate the public fund.

MANSUKHLAL VITHAL DAS CHAUHAN V/S STATE OF GUJRAT

1997  S CC(CRI) 1120==

REQUIREMENTS OF A VALID SANCTION -- independent application of mind to the effects of the case as also material and evidence collected during investigation by the authority competent to grant sanction essential -- sanction issued by an authority on the directions of the High Court, held, was invalid because there was no independent application of mind by that authority.  Hypo- direction had taken away discretion of the authority not to grant sanction and it was left with no choice but to mechanically accord sanction in obedience of the mandamus issued by the High Court.

KAILASH CHANDRA V/S HARBANS SINGH 1986 J L J 499

Sanction is not always a precondition for prosecution of a public servant even if the fact complained of this done by him while he is actually engaged in the performance of his official duty.  It is on the amend the act is directly connected with his official duty that sanction is necessary.  Where the official status only furnishes the opportunity to commit the offence there is no necessity of any sanction .

R. K. CHARAR V / S STATE OF M.P. 1987 M P L J 

Where a town Inspector of police failed to comply the order of magistrate requiring him to return the property seized under section 102, in a case filed on the complaint of the magistrate under section of 166 Indian panel code, the town inspector cannot raise the plea of sanction under section 197.  As there is no Nexus between the offence and the official duty.

 

 

Home ] Up ]

Copyright 2001 rajeev bhatjiwale
Last modified: March 22, 2001