Supreme Court clarifies necessity of sanction for prosecuting public servants in cases of document fabrication: Shadakshari vs. State of Karnataka (2024) INSC 42 (17 January 2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 17 January 2024
Citation: (2024) INSC 42
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J. and Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
Can a public servant be prosecuted for creating fake documents without prior government sanction? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving allegations of a Village Accountant fabricating documents. This judgment clarifies the circumstances under which prior sanction is necessary for prosecuting public servants, particularly in cases of document forgery and misuse of official position. The bench consisted of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, with Justice Ujjal Bhuyan authoring the judgment.

Case Background

The case originated from a complaint filed by Shadakshari (the appellant) on 19 December 2016, alleging that Mallikarjuna (respondent No. 2), a Village Accountant, and another individual were creating fake documents, including a death certificate and family tree, to illegally transfer land belonging to the appellant’s family. The appellant alleged that the land was given to accused No. 1 for cultivation, who then colluded with respondent No. 2 to create these fraudulent documents. The complaint was registered at Haleebedu Police Station, Belur, as Crime No. 323/2016, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), including Sections 409, 419, 420, 423, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, and 473 read with Sections 149 and 34 of the IPC.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Initially, respondent No. 2 filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC) before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, seeking to quash the FIR. The High Court, in its order dated 05 January 2018, observed that there were specific allegations against respondent No. 2, including the creation of a death certificate of a living person, and declined to interfere with the FIR at that stage. However, after the chargesheet was filed, respondent No. 2 again approached the High Court seeking to quash the complaint, the chargesheet, and an order dated 28 March 2018. The High Court, noting that respondent No. 2 was a public servant and that sanction to prosecute him had been denied, quashed the complaint, chargesheet, and the order dated 28 March 2018 vide order dated 25 November 2020. The High Court also granted liberty to the appellant to challenge the denial of sanction in an appropriate proceeding. This led to the appellant filing the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core legal provision in this case is Section 197 of the Cr.PC, which deals with the prosecution of judges and public servants. Section 197(1) of the Cr.PC states:

“197. Prosecution of Judges and public servants: (1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction…”

This section mandates that prior sanction from the government is required before a court can take cognizance of an offense allegedly committed by a public servant while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their official duty. The purpose of this provision is to protect public servants from frivolous or vexatious criminal proceedings related to their official duties.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant’s counsel argued that no sanction was required to prosecute respondent No. 2 because creating fake documents could not be considered part of his official duty.
• The appellant relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Shambhu Nath Misra vs. State of U.P., (1997) 5 SCC 326, to support the claim that fabricating records is not part of a public servant’s official duty.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent’s counsel argued that the High Court’s order was correct and that a public servant cannot be prosecuted without prior sanction.
• The respondent relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in D. Devaraja vs. Obais Sanders Hussain, (2020) 7 SCC 695, to emphasize that prosecution of a public servant requires prior sanction.

State Counsel Arguments:

• The State counsel supported the contentions of the appellant, stating that no sanction was required to prosecute respondent No. 2.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether sanction is required to prosecute respondent No. 2, who is accused of creating fake documents while misusing his official position as a Village Accountant, a public servant?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon:

• Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1 – High Court referred to this case while not interfering with the FIR.
• State of Orissa vs. Ganesh Chandra Jew, (2004) 8 SCC 40 – Explained the concept of protection under Section 197 of the Cr.PC, stating that the protection is available only when the act is reasonably connected with the discharge of official duty.
• Shambhu Nath Misra vs. State of U.P., (1997) 5 SCC 326 – Held that fabricating records or misappropriating public funds is not part of a public servant’s official duty.
• D. Devaraja vs. Obais Sanders Hussain, (2020) 7 SCC 695 – Referred to Ganesh Chandra Jew (supra) and held that Section 197 Cr.PC does not protect every act of a public servant but only those done in discharge of official duty.
• A. Srinivasulu vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 900 – The court distinguished the facts of the present case from this case, where sanction was deemed necessary for a criminal conspiracy charge.

Legal Provisions Considered:

• Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC) – Deals with the prosecution of judges and public servants, requiring prior sanction for acts done in the discharge of official duty.
• Sections 409, 419, 420, 423, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, and 473 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections under which the accused were charged for forgery and cheating.
• Section 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections related to common intention and unlawful assembly.
• Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC) – Deals with the report of police officer on completion of investigation.
• Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC) – Deals with the inherent powers of the High Court.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Shambhu Nath Misra vs. State of U.P., (1997) 5 SCC 326: The court relied on this case to reiterate that fabricating records is not part of a public servant’s official duty, thus supporting the appellant’s argument that no sanction was required.
• State of Orissa vs. Ganesh Chandra Jew, (2004) 8 SCC 40: The court considered this case to explain the underlying concept of protection under Section 197 Cr.PC, emphasizing that the act must be reasonably connected with the discharge of official duty.
• D. Devaraja vs. Obais Sanders Hussain, (2020) 7 SCC 695: While the respondent relied on this case, the court clarified that it does not extend protection to every act of a public servant, only those done in the discharge of official duty.
• A. Srinivasulu vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 900: The court distinguished this case from the present one, noting that the facts were different and that the principle of sanction was not applicable in the same way.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that the protection under Section 197 of the Cr.PC is intended to safeguard public servants from harassment for actions performed in the course of their official duties. However, this protection does not extend to acts that are not part of their official duty, such as fabricating documents. The Court emphasized that the act of creating fake documents is a criminal act, and not an official duty, thus negating the need for prior sanction. The court also considered that the High Court had erred in quashing the complaint and chargesheet in its entirety, especially when there were other accused persons involved.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court rejected the argument that the accused was acting in his official capacity. The Court held that the act of creating fake documents was not part of the public servant’s official duty. The Court also considered that the High Court had erred in quashing the complaint and chargesheet in its entirety, especially when there were other accused persons involved. The Court set aside the order of the High Court and allowed the prosecution to continue.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in quashing the complaint and the chargesheet. The court observed that making fake documents cannot be a part of the official duty of a public servant. The court also noted that the High Court had granted liberty to the respondent to challenge any adverse report filed subsequent to the lodging of the complaint, but instead, the respondent challenged the complaint itself, which he could not have done.

“The question is when the public servant is alleged to have committed the offence of fabrication of record or misappropriation of public fund etc. can he be said to have acted in discharge of his official duties. It is not the official duty of the public servant to fabricate the false records and misappropriate the public funds etc. in furtherance of or in the discharge of his official duties.”

“The official capacity only enables him to fabricate the record or misappropriate the public fund etc. It does not mean that it is integrally connected or inseparably interlinked with the crime committed in the course of the same transaction”

“It is restricted to only those acts or omissions which are done by public servants in the discharge of official duties.”

Key Takeaways

• Prior sanction is not required to prosecute a public servant for creating fake documents, as this act is not considered part of their official duty.
• The protection under Section 197 of the Cr.PC is limited to actions taken in the discharge of official duties and does not extend to criminal acts like document forgery.
• The judgment clarifies the scope of Section 197 Cr.PC and provides guidance on when prior sanction is necessary for prosecuting public servants.
• This decision will likely impact future cases involving allegations of document fabrication by public servants, ensuring that they are not shielded from prosecution for acts that are not part of their official duties.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court dated 25 November 2020, thereby allowing the prosecution to continue. The court clarified that the observations made in the judgment were only for the purpose of deciding the present challenge and should not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case. All contentions were kept open.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that prior sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.PC is not required to prosecute a public servant for creating fake documents, as this act is not considered part of their official duty. This judgment reinforces the principle that the protection afforded to public servants under Section 197 Cr.PC is limited to acts performed in the discharge of their official duties and does not extend to criminal acts like document fabrication. This clarifies the legal position and provides a clear guideline for future cases involving similar issues.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Shadakshari vs. State of Karnataka clarifies that prior sanction is not required to prosecute a public servant accused of fabricating documents, as this act is not considered part of their official duty. The Court set aside the High Court’s order and allowed the prosecution to continue. This decision ensures that public servants are not shielded from prosecution for criminal acts that are not related to their official duties, reinforcing the importance of accountability and the rule of law.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law
Child Categories:

• Section 197, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
• Document Forgery
• Public Servants Prosecution
• Sanction for Prosecution

FAQ

Q: Does a public servant need prior sanction to be prosecuted for creating fake documents?
A: No, according to the Supreme Court, prior sanction is not required because creating fake documents is not part of a public servant’s official duty.

Q: What is Section 197 of the CrPC?
A: Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with the prosecution of judges and public servants, requiring prior sanction for acts done in the discharge of official duty.

Q: What does the Supreme Court’s decision mean for public servants?
A: The decision means that public servants are not protected from prosecution for criminal acts that are not part of their official duties, such as document forgery.

Q: What was the High Court’s decision in this case?
A: The High Court had quashed the complaint and chargesheet against the public servant, but the Supreme Court set aside this order.

Q: What is the key takeaway from this judgment?
A: The key takeaway is that the protection under Section 197 of the Cr.PC is limited to actions taken in the discharge of official duties and does not extend to criminal acts like document forgery.