Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →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 the alleged acts attributed to the public servant had a reasonable and direct connection with the discharge of official duty so as to attract the requirement of prior sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Analysis: Section 197 protects a public servant from prosecution for offences committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty, but the protection is available only where the act complained of bears a reasonable connection with such duty. The test is whether the alleged omission or act is directly concerned with the official function and not whether the conduct is ultimately alleged to be improper or even dishonest. On the facts, the role assigned to the respondent arose from processing land-allotment papers within his official domain, and similarly placed officers involved in the same transaction had already been granted protection. The allegation against the respondent was connected with the same processing of the file and paper work, and no sanction had been obtained before cognisance.
Conclusion: Prior sanction was required and, in its absence, the respondent was entitled to protection under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The challenge to the High Court's order failed.