In a landmark decision on January 17, the Supreme Court addressed the scope of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), emphasizing that it pertains solely to actions performed by public servants in the course of their official duties. The court ruled that the requirement for prior sanction for prosecution under S.197 CrPC does not extend to cases involving the creation of counterfeit documents, as such actions are not considered part of official duties.
The case in question involved the High Court’s dismissal of criminal proceedings against a public servant due to the absence of prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC. The Supreme Court, composed of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, overturned the High Court’s decision. The court opined that Section 197 CrPC does not shield public servants for every action while in service but specifically covers acts or omissions conducted in the discharge of official duties.
The complainant-appellant had alleged that the accused-public servant, a Village Accountant, had engaged in fabricating official documents by abusing his official position. The critical issue addressed was whether sanction was necessary to prosecute the accused-public servant for the creation of fake documents in his role as a Village Accountant.
The Supreme Court, in its deliberation, elucidated the framework of Section 197(1) of CrPC and referred to the Shambhoo Nath Misra Vs State of U.P. judgment. The court quoted the judgment, emphasizing that actions like fabricating records and misappropriating funds by a public servant do not fall within the purview of official duties. Additionally, the court cited the State of Orissa v. Ganesh Chandra Jew Judgment, affirming that Section 197 CrPC only shields acts or omissions executed in the discharge of official duty.
Relying on these precedents, the Supreme Court concluded that the creation of documents or fabrication of records cannot be considered an integral part of a public servant’s official duty. Consequently, the court set aside the High Court’s order, allowing the criminal appeal of the complainant. The judgment underscored that its observations were specific to the case at hand and should not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the matter, leaving all contentions open.
