Case Title: Shri B.K Parchure V. State
According to the Delhi High Court, there is no necessity that the need for sanction be constantly delayed until a later stage of the proceedings. If the actions complained of are related to official business, Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code is invoked, allowing for prompt penalty at the time of taking cognizance.
According to Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav:-
"….there is no doubt that a question of sanction can arise at any stage of proceedings but the same gets attracted immediately at the time of taking cognizance, if the facts of the case or act of the accused, are so intricately connected to his official function that it cannot be segregated. There is no legal bar to always postponing the requirement of sanction at a later stage...If Section 197 of CrPC is construed too narrowly it can never be applied, to any of the acts committed by a public servant as no public servant can be allowed to commit an offence in the discharge of his official duty. The entire legislative intent would be frustrated."
The Metropolitan Magistrate's decision to deny the petitioner's request for discharge on the grounds that he did not receive a sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code was being challenged in court. According to Sections 218, 466, 120B and 34 of the IPC, as well as Sections 13(i)(c) and 13(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The complaint alleges that the petitioner and the other defendants knowingly and dishonestly generated an erroneous map in order to harm the complainant's property. The petitioner's motion for his discharge was denied by the MM in the aforementioned judgement on the grounds that the penalty under Section 197 CrPC is only necessary when the offender is alleged to have committed the crime while performing official responsibilities.
The High Court noted that in situations where the Court initially may not have felt it essential to order sanctions, but later determines that the public servant's actions were taken in the course of performing his official duties, suitable instructions for obtaining sanctions might be granted.
"However, if the Court at the initial stage itself is satisfied that an act alleged against an accused is in the discharge of his official function, the requirement of sanction would get attracted immediately. There has to be a reasonable connection between the act complained of and the discharge of official duty," the Court added.
Additionally, it was noted that in order to qualify for protection under Section 197, the accused's actions must be such that they cannot be distinguished from the performance of official duties. The Court further stated that the accuser's accusation should not be fabricated or faked.
"If the act has a reasonable relation to the duty of the accused, the question of sanction may arise immediately. The use of the expression, 'official duty' implies that the act or omission must have been done by the public servant in the course of his service and that it should have been in the discharge of his duty. The Section does not extend its protective cover to every act or omission done by a public servant in service but restricts its scope of operation to only those acts or omissions which are done by a public servant in discharge of official duty," the Court said.
It added, "The protection given under Section 197 of CrPC. is to protect responsible public servants against the institution of possibly vexatious criminal proceedings for offences alleged to have been committed by them, while they are acting or purporting to act as public servants. No straitjacket formula can be devised concerning the stage of applicability of sanction. However, the same would depend on the facts of each case."
According to the case's circumstances, the court found no complaints made particularly against the petitioner that would "isolate" him from other officials doing their official duties. The Court stated that the circumstances and the offence levelled against the petitioner are completely different.
Therefore, the Court reversed the contested MM ruling and dismissed the complaint for lack of sanction, allowing the parties to reopen the case after they had received approval from the appropriate authority.