Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947: s.19 – Requirement of sanction – Held: Sanction to prosecute public servant is not required if the public servant has already retired on the date of cognizance of the court – Thus, protection under s.19 is not available to public servant after he demitted his office or retired from service – Public servant.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.197 – Protection under s.197 is available to the public servants when an offence is said to have been committed ‘while acting or purporting to act in discharge of their official duty’, but where the acts are performed using the office as a mere cloak for unlawful gains, such acts are not protected – Issue whether the alleged act is intricately connected with the discharge of official functions and whether the matter would come within the expression ‘while acting or purporting to act in discharge of their official duty’, would get crystalized only after evidence is led and the issue of sanction can be agitated at a later stage as well – Public servant.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: It was held in Labh Singh case that sanction to prosecute the public servant for the offences under the PC Act is not required if the public servant had already retired on the date of cognizance by the court. In view of the said judgment, there was no occasion or reason to entertain any application seeking discharge in respect of offences punishable under the Act, on the ground of absence of any sanction under Section 19 of the Act. The High Court was also not justified in observing ‘that the protection available to a public servant while in service, should also be available after his retirement’. Again, it has consistently been laid down that the protection under Section
197 of the Code is available to the public servants when an offence is said to have been committed ‘while acting or purporting to act in discharge of their official duty’, but where the acts are performed using the office as a mere cloak for unlawful gains, such acts are not protected. It has also been observed by this Court that, at times, the issue whether the alleged act is intricately connected with the discharge of official functions and whether the matter would come within the expression ‘while acting or purporting to act in discharge of their official duty’, would get crystalized only after evidence is led and the issue of sanction can be agitated at a later stage as well. [Paras 9-12][523-C, F-G; 524-A; 525-E-F] State of Punjab v. Labh Singh (2014) 16 SCC 807 : [2014] 11 SCR 312; S.A. Venkataraman v. The State [1958] SCR 1037; Inspector of Police and another v. Battenapatla Venkata Ratnam and another (2015)13 SCC 87 : [2015] 4 SCR 609; P.K. Pradhan v. State of Sikkim represented by the Central Bureau of
Investigation (2001) 6 SCC 704 : [2001] 3 SCR 1119 – relied on
Rishipal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2014) 7 SCC 215 : [2014] 6 SCR 1012; Anil Kumar Bose v. State of Bihar (1974) 4 SCC 616 : [1974] 3 SCR 902 – distinguished.
N.K. Ganguly v. CBI, New Delhi (2016) 2 SCC 143 : [2015] 10 SCR 192; Kalicharan Mahapatra v. State of Orissa AIR 1998 SC 2595 : [1998] 3 SCR 961;
R. Balakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala (1996) 1 SCC
478 : [1995] 6 Suppl SCR 236 – referred to
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.