Case Title: Pravinsinh Jhala v. State Of Gujarat & 3 Others
The Gujarat High Court observed that when a government servant is accused of a criminal offence, there has to be a reasonable connection between the act concerned and the performance of his official duty for him to claim that there is need of sanction under Section 197 of Criminal Procedure Code, CrPC to prosecute him.
The Hon’ble Court interpreted a caselaw which was decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of the same court. In Anjani Kumar V. State of Bihar and Anr. wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court had inter alia observed that a sure shot test with regard to sanction would be to observe whether the omission or neglect on part of the public servant while committing the act complained of could make him liable for dereliction of official duty.
The Court further came to a conclusion by placing reliance on various judgments in this regard. They are as follows :-
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Siddiq (Dead) thro. LRs V. Mahant Suresh Das and Ors., observed that-
The following words of LORD DENNING in deciding cases based on precedents have become locus classicus:
"Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect, in deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cardozo, J. ) by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive. Precedent should be followed only so far as it marks the path of justice, but you must cut the dead wood and trim off the side branches else you will find yourself lost in thickets and branches. My plea is to keep the path of justice clear of obstructions which could impede it."
Furthermore, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Deepak Bajaj v. State of Maharashtra and Anr., had observed that "it is well settled that the judgment of a court is not to be read mechanically as a Euclid's theorem nor as if it were a statute."
To address the contentions of the Applicant regarding Sections 132 and 197 of the CrPC, the Bench relied on Nagaraj V. State of Mysore, where the Apex Court had provided four parameters to gain the benefit provided by Section 132:
"To get such a benefit and to put off a clear decision on the question whether his conduct amounts to an offence or not, the appellant has to show (i) that there was an unlawful assembly or an assembly of five or more persons likely to cause a disturbance of the public peace ; (ii) that such an assembly was commanded to disperse ; (iii) that either the assembly did not disperse on such command or, if no command had been given; its conduct had shown a determination not to disperse ; and (iv) that in the circumstances he had used force against the members of such assembly."
Further, regarding Section 197, the Court placed reliance on Indra Devi v. the State of Rajasthan and Anr -
"Public servants have been treated as a special category in order to protect them from malicious or vexatious prosecution. At the same time, the shield cannot protect corrupt officers and the provisions must be construed in such a manner as to advance the cause of honesty, justice and good governance."