Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether prosecution for the alleged omission in not providing a government vehicle to shift a patient could proceed without previous sanction under Section 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Analysis: The alleged failure was treated as an omission connected with discharge of official duty, because the decision whether to provide the official vehicle was directly linked with the appellant's official functions. The governing test is whether the act or omission has a reasonable connection with official duty and could be claimed to have been done in the course of service or under colour of office. On that standard, the omission complained of was not a purely private act but one intrinsically tied to the appellant's official position, so the protective bar under Section 197 applied.
Conclusion: Previous sanction was necessary, and the appellant could not be prosecuted without it.
Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were unsustainable, and the appellant was entitled to the protection of sanction before prosecution could continue.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the alleged offence by a public servant is directly and reasonably connected with an act or omission in the discharge of official duty, or under colour of office, prosecution cannot proceed without prior sanction under Section 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.