Trial to Proceed Against Respondent without Sanction; Key Evidence to be Re-evaluated

The High Court allowed the trial to proceed against the respondent, emphasizing that the necessity of sanction under Sec. 197 can be raised during the trial if relevant material emerges. The Court found that the Addl. Sessions Judge had not properly evaluated crucial evidence, including reports that contradicted the initial findings. It was determined that stalling the prosecution would be incorrect, and the trial should continue independently. The petition was granted, and the rule was upheld.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Sec. 197 of Cr.P.C.
2. Stage at which Sec. 197 can be invoked.
3. Whether the act was in discharge of official duty.

Summary:

1. Applicability of Sec. 197 of Cr.P.C.:
The judgment discusses the object and purpose of Sec. 197, which is to protect public officers from frivolous, vexatious, and false prosecution. The Supreme Court in various cases, including Choudhury Parveen Sultana v. State of West Bengal and Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India, has held that the protection is intended to prevent harassment and embarrassment of public officers. The section is applicable only when the alleged act is reasonably connected with the discharge of official duty and not merely a cloak for objectionable acts. In the present case, the Addl. Sessions Judge allowed the application for discharge of the accused on the grounds that sanction for prosecution u/s 197 was not obtained.

2. Stage at which Sec. 197 can be invoked:
The judgment refers to several cases, including Bakhshish Singh Brar v. Smt. Gurmej Kaur and Bholu Ram v. State of Punjab, which establish that the plea of sanction can be considered at any stage of the proceeding, including during the trial. The interference at the stage of issuance of process/summons is not proper. The necessity for sanction may reveal itself during the course of the judicial inquiry or prosecution evidence at the trial.

3. Whether the act was in discharge of official duty:
The judgment emphasizes that the act complained of must be in the discharge of official duty or in purported exercise of official duty. In the present case, the complainant alleged that the deceased committed suicide due to extortion and threats by the P.S.I. The Addl. Sessions Judge concluded that there was no evidence to show that the P.S.I. had given any threat or intimidation to the accused on the day of the incident. However, the High Court found that the Addl. Sessions Judge did not properly appreciate the material on record, including the post-mortem report, the report of the Deputy Inspector of Electricity, and the F.S.L. report, which negated the possibility of death due to electric shock.

Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that it would be erroneous to stall the prosecution and allowed the trial to proceed against the respondent. It clarified that during the course of the trial, if relevant material comes on record, the respondent can urge the necessity of sanction u/s 197. The trial Court is to consider the case independently of the observations made in this order. The petition was allowed, and the rule was made absolute.

---