Nithyakalyani Narayanan. V
As the alleged acts do not form a part of his official duty, the Supreme Court held on January 17, while ruling on a criminal appeal, that the prosecution of a public servant for the act of creating fake documents does not require prior sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Under this case, the criminal proceedings against the public official were overturned by the High Court due to a lack of prior sanction as stipulated under Section 197 CrPC.
The Criminal Appeal filed by the complainant-appellant against the quashing of the criminal proceedings was allowed by the division bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, who reversed the High Court’s decision. They noted that the criminal proceedings cannot be continued against the public without prior sanction to prosecute them –“Section 197 Cr.PC does not extend its protective cover to every act or omission of a public servant while in service. It is restricted to only those acts or omissions which are done by public servants in the discharge of official duties.”
The complainant-appellant claimed that the accused public servant had misused his official position as a Village Accountant in order to fabricate official papers. The issue discussed was whether authorization was needed to bring charges against a public employee who has been accused, among other things, of fabricating papers by abusing his official role as a village accountant.
The court outlined the purpose of Section 197 (1) of the Cr.P.C. before providing an answer to the question. Subsequently, the Court relied on paragraph 5 of the Shambhoo Nath Misra v. State of U.P. ruling, which maintained that a public servant’s falsification of documents and embezzlement of funds cannot be considered an official responsibility.
Additionally, the Court mentioned the case State of Orissa v. Ganesh Chandra Jew, which concluded that – “Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not extend its protective cover to every act or omission done by a public servant while in service. The scope of operation of the section is restricted to only those acts or omissions which are done by a public servant while in service. The scope of operation of the section is restricted to only those acts or omissions which are done by a public servant in discharge of official duty.” The Court adopted the position that creating such documents or fabricating records cannot be a part of a public servant’s official duties based on prior rulings
The complainant’s criminal appeal was granted by the court.
Case Title: Shadakshari vs. State Of Karnataka & Anr.
Bench: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.