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 cognizance and summons issued against a public servant could be sustained without previous sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, where the acts complained of were traceable to the exercise or purported exercise of official duties.
Analysis: The appellant was a public servant and the acts relied upon by the prosecution arose from his official role as licensing authority. The order impugned, the show-cause notice, the response in the writ proceedings, and the final direction regarding removal of seats were all connected with the discharge of official functions. The governing test is whether there is a reasonable connection between the alleged act and the official duty, not whether the accused is ultimately guilty. Even if the act is said to have been excessive or irregular, sanction is required where the act bears such relation to official duty that it can be said to have been done in the discharge of, or in purported exercise of, such duty.
Conclusion: Cognizance taken against the appellant without previous sanction was not sustainable, and the proceedings were liable to be quashed in so far as the appellant was concerned.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the alleged act of a public servant has a reasonable nexus with the discharge or purported discharge of official duty, prior sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is a condition precedent to cognizance; absent such sanction, the cognizance is bad in law.