TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the State notification under Section 197(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applied to members of the Bombay Police Force even if the impugned acts were not directly referable to maintenance of public order. (ii) Whether the acts complained of, namely arrest, confinement and non-production before a Magistrate, were done in the discharge or purported discharge of official duty so as to attract the bar under Section 197(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Issue (i): Whether the State notification under Section 197(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applied to members of the Bombay Police Force even if the impugned acts were not directly referable to maintenance of public order.
Analysis: The notification was directed to members of the force charged with the maintenance of public order. That expression was treated as describing the category of officers covered by the notification, not as limiting immunity only to acts performed in the direct maintenance of public order. The phrase was construed in a broad and practical sense, and members of the Bombay Police Force were held to fall within the notified class.
Conclusion: The notification applied to the respondent police officers.
Issue (ii): Whether the acts complained of, namely arrest, confinement and non-production before a Magistrate, were done in the discharge or purported discharge of official duty so as to attract the bar under Section 197(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Analysis: The governing test was whether there was a reasonable connection between the act and official duty, or whether the act was done while acting as a public officer in the course of the same transaction. The complaint itself showed that the appellants were arrested in connection with cognizable offences and were in police custody. The alleged wrongful confinement arose out of the police officers' official handling of the matter, even though the custody later became illegal on account of non-production within the prescribed time. The alleged acts were therefore committed in official capacity and were covered by the statutory protection.
Conclusion: The bar under Section 197(2) applied and sanction was necessary.
Final Conclusion: The complaint could not proceed without sanction, and the dismissal of the challenge to the Magistrate's order was sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: For the purpose of sanction under Section 197, the decisive test is whether the impugned act bears a reasonable connection with official duty or was done while acting as a public officer in the course of the same transaction; if so, statutory protection is attracted even if the act complained of was wrongful or unlawful.
TaxTMI 
