The Supreme Court has reiterated that sanction from the competent authority is pre-requisite and mandatory for prosecution of a public servant in criminal cases, including those under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It also held that such sanction from appropriate authority is mandatory prerequisite even when cognisance is taken by a criminal court under Section 319 of the CrPC.
Giving this ruling a Bench of Justices J.S. Khehar and C. Nagappan, however, said that protection of “sanction” under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not available to police officers accused of illegal detention of an accused and offences committed during the period before the formal-arrest is recorded.
Writing the judgment, Justice Khehar, citing a catena of an earlier verdict, said the law declared by this court emerging from various judgments, leaves no room for any doubt that under Section 197 of the CrPC and / or sanction mandated under a special statute (as postulated under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act) would be a necessary pre-requisite, before a court of competent jurisdiction, takes cognisance of an offence (whether under the Indian Penal Code, or under the concerned special statutory enactment).
The Bench said that the procedure for obtaining sanction would be governed by the provisions of the CrPC and /or as mandated under the special enactment. The mandate is clear and unambiguous, that a court “shall not” take cognisance without sanction. Therefore, a court just cannot take cognisance, without sanction by the appropriate authority.
The Supreme Court Bench, dealing with appeals filed by two police officers of Punjab, Surinderjit Singh Mand and P.S. Parmar challenging their prosecution said that the first task, which a trial court is obliged to embark upon, when confronted with a proposition of the nature at hand, is to ascertain whether the alleged offence, attributed to the accused, had been committed by an accused “while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty”.
