Police officers not protected under Section 6 for criminal acts; no prior sanction needed.

Devinder Singh and Ors. Versus State of Punjab through CBI

Devinder Singh and Ors. Versus State of Punjab through CBI - 2016 (12) SCC 87 Issues Involved:
1. Whether prosecution or other legal proceedings against police officers can be instituted without prior sanction of the Central Government under Section 6 of the Punjab Disturbed Areas Act, 1983 (as amended in 1989).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Requirement of Sanction Under Section 6 of the Punjab Disturbed Areas Act, 1983:
The primary question in the appeals was whether, under Section 6 of the Punjab Disturbed Areas Act, 1983 (as amended in 1989), the prosecution or other legal proceedings against police officers could be initiated without the prior sanction of the Central Government. The appellants, who were police officers, argued that they were discharging their duties during a period of heightened terrorist activity in Punjab, and thus, any legal proceedings against them required prior sanction from the Central Government. The CBI, on the other hand, contended that no such sanction was necessary because the alleged acts were not part of the appellants' official duties but were criminal acts like fake encounters and custodial torture.

2. Legal Precedents and Judicial Reasoning:
The judgment extensively reviewed several legal precedents to determine the necessity of sanction under similar circumstances. It was noted that the protection of sanction is intended to assure honest officers that they can perform their duties without fear of vexatious prosecution. However, this protection does not extend to criminal acts. The court cited various cases, including *Dr. Hori Ram Singh v. Emperor* and *Shreekantiah Ramayya Munipalli v. The State of Bombay*, to illustrate that the necessity of sanction is determined by whether the act has a reasonable connection with the discharge of official duties.

3. Connection Between Act and Official Duty:
The court emphasized that for the protection under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to apply, there must be a reasonable connection between the act and the official duty. If the act is directly related to the official duty, even if it exceeds what is necessary, sanction is required. However, if the act is a criminal activity with no connection to official duties, no sanction is needed. The court referred to cases like *State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Budhikota Subbarao* and *State of Orissa and Ors. v. Ganesh Chandra Jew* to support this principle.

4. Stage of Determining Sanction:
The court held that the question of whether sanction is necessary can arise at any stage of the proceedings and must be determined based on the facts and evidence presented. The court can re-examine the necessity of sanction at various stages, including during the trial or at the conclusion of the trial. This principle was supported by cases like *P.K. Pradhan v. State of Sikkim* and *State of Karnataka through CBI v. C. Nagarajaswamy*.

5. Specific Case Analysis:
In the specific cases at hand, the prosecution alleged that the deaths were caused by fake encounters or torture, while the defense claimed the incidents occurred during the discharge of official duties. The court concluded that if the prosecution's version is correct, no sanction is required. However, the accused have the right to present evidence to show that the acts were part of their official duties. The trial court must proceed based on the prosecution's version initially but can re-decide the question of sanction if evidence suggests a reasonable connection to official duties.

Conclusion:
The court disposed of the appeals and writ petitions with directions that the trial court should proceed based on the prosecution's version but remain open to re-examining the necessity of sanction if evidence indicates a reasonable connection to the discharge of official duties. The trial court must consider the principles outlined in the judgment and decide the question of sanction from stage to stage or at the conclusion of the trial.