Sanction for prosecution and cognizance procedure clarified: no protection for acts unrelated to official duty, and process remained valid.

Sanction under Section 197 CrPC was held unnecessary because the alleged abuses, assault, and removal of the complainant had no reasonable nexus with official duty; conduct of that kind cannot be treated as part of public functions. The Magistrate's process was also upheld because cognizance is taken when judicial mind is applied to the complaint for proceedings under Sections 200 and 204 CrPC, and recording sworn statements after perusing the complaint showed cognizance had already been taken. The absence of an express recital of cognizance caused no illegality, and no prejudice was shown. The issuing of process was therefore left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was required to prosecute public servants for the alleged abuses and assault. (ii) Whether the issuance of process was vitiated because sworn statements were recorded in the course of cognizance proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was required to prosecute public servants for the alleged abuses and assault.

Analysis: The alleged acts consisted of abusive and offensive utterances and the alleged removal of the complainant from the office. Those acts had no reasonable connection with discharge of official duty. Conduct of that nature cannot be treated as part of official functions, and sanction is attracted only where the complained-of act is connected with official duty.

Conclusion: Sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was not required.

Issue (ii): Whether the issuance of process was vitiated because sworn statements were recorded in the course of cognizance proceedings.

Analysis: Cognizance is taken when the Magistrate applies judicial mind to the complaint for the purpose of proceeding under Sections 200 and 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Recording of sworn statements after perusing the complaint indicates that cognizance had already been taken. The order did not suffer from illegality merely because the Magistrate did not expressly state that cognizance had been taken before recording sworn statements, and no prejudice was shown.

Conclusion: The process issued by the Magistrate was not vitiated on the ground urged.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the criminal proceedings failed, and the order issuing process was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is unnecessary where the alleged conduct has no reasonable nexus with official duty, and omission to expressly record cognizance before sworn statements does not invalidate process if cognizance can be inferred from the record and no prejudice is caused.

---