Supreme Court Clarifies Sanction Requirements for Public Servants in Conspiracy Cases: Om Prakash Yadav vs. Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay & Ors (2024) INSC 979

Date of the Judgment: 13th December 2024
Citation: (2024) INSC 979
Judges: J.B. Pardiwala, J., Manoj Misra, J.
Can a public servant be prosecuted for conspiracy without prior government sanction? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a case involving allegations of a fabricated alibi to shield a murder suspect. This judgment clarifies the circumstances under which public servants can be prosecuted for criminal acts allegedly committed while in office, specifically focusing on the necessity of prior sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The bench, comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, delivered a unanimous judgment.

Case Background

The case revolves around a murder that occurred in Firozabad, Uttar Pradesh, on October 12, 2007. The appellant, Om Prakash Yadav, filed a First Information Report (FIR) stating that his brother was murdered and his nephew was grievously injured. The FIR named several individuals as accused.

On the same day, a separate FIR was filed in Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, against one of the main accused in the murder case, Ashok Dixit, for allegedly possessing illegal liquor. This FIR was lodged by police officials, including respondents in this case, who claimed to have arrested Dixit at 9:30 am. This arrest became the basis for Dixit’s alibi, claiming he was in Gwalior at the time of the murder in Firozabad, which occurred at 8:30 am.

The prosecution argued that the Gwalior arrest was a fabrication to shield Dixit. The Investigating Officer (IO) in Firozabad found that the police officials in Gwalior, including the respondents, had conspired to create a false case to provide Dixit with an alibi. This led to a supplementary charge sheet against the respondents for conspiracy to commit murder.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Allahabad quashed the criminal proceedings against the respondents, primarily on the grounds that prior sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC was required for prosecuting public servants. The High Court held that since the respondents were public servants and the alleged offenses were related to their official duties, the lack of sanction invalidated the proceedings. The High Court did not consider the fact that the Trial Court had already convicted the main accused, Ashok Dixit, for the murder, and had observed that the alibi created by the respondents was a sham.

Legal Framework

The core legal provision in question is Section 197 of the CrPC, which mandates prior government sanction for prosecuting public servants for offenses committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their official duty. Specifically, Section 197(1) of the CrPC states:

“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 provision aims to protect public servants from frivolous or vexatious prosecutions related to their official duties. However, the key issue is determining what constitutes an act done “in the discharge of official duty.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the High Court erred in quashing the proceedings. The act of hatching a conspiracy to commit murder and creating a false alibi does not fall under the ambit of official duty.
• The appellant contended that no sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC is required to prosecute the respondents, as they were not acting in the discharge of their official duties when they allegedly conspired to create a false case.
• The appellant emphasized that the Trial Court had already rejected the alibi of Ashok Dixit and convicted him, establishing that the alibi was a sham created in collusion with the police officials.
• The appellant also cited statements of independent witnesses who claimed that respondent no. 1 was directly involved in creating the false case.

Respondent No. 1’s Arguments:

• Respondent no. 1 argued that he was not responsible for the registration of the false FIR and was not even posted at the Murar Police Station at the time of the incident.
• He contended that even if the FIR was registered at his behest, sanction for prosecution was necessary, which was denied by the D.I.G., Gwalior.
• He argued that there are bleak chances of conviction because he was not posted at the relevant police station, he is 72 years old, and the main accused has already been convicted.
• Respondent no. 1 stated that the statements of the two witnesses were recorded after a delay of one year and were not examined during the trial.
• He also pointed out contradictions in the prosecution’s case, as the witnesses claimed he was in Gwalior while the eyewitnesses placed Ashok Dixit in Firozabad.

Respondents Nos. 3, 4, and 5’s Arguments:

• Respondents nos. 3, 4, and 5 argued that they were falsely implicated by the Uttar Pradesh police due to rivalry between the two police establishments.
• They claimed that they were following the instructions of their superior officer and had no role in the conspiracy.
• They also stated that the witnesses who implicated them had provided false addresses.
• They contended that the High Court was justified in quashing the proceedings for want of sanction.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for determination:

1. Whether the CJM, Firozabad, could have taken cognizance of the charge sheets against the respondents in the absence of sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC? In other words, whether the alleged offenses were committed by the respondents while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their official duty?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court:

Legal Provisions Considered by the Court

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Supreme Court relied on a plethora of precedents to arrive at its decision. It emphasized that the protection under Section 197 CrPC is not limitless and must be balanced with the need to ensure accountability of public servants. It was held that the acts of conspiracy and creating a false alibi do not fall under the ambit of official duty, thus no sanction was required for prosecuting the respondents. The court also emphasized that the question of sanction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings.

The Supreme Court used the case of Dr. Hori Ram Singh v. The Crown [AIR 1939 FC 43]* to interpret the phrase “purporting to act” and held that the offense must be in respect of an act done or purported to be done in execution of duty, i.e., in the discharge of an official duty. It was also held that it must purport to be done in the official capacity with which he pretends to be clothed at the time.

The Supreme Court used the case of Gill and Another v. The King [AIR 1948 PC 128]* to establish that a public servant acts in official duty only if the act is within the scope of his official duty.

The Supreme Court used the case of Albert West Meads v. The King [AIR 1948 PC 156]* to reiterate that fraudulently misapplying money entrusted to a public servant is not an act done by virtue of his office.

The Supreme Court used the case of Shreekantiah Ramayya Munipalli v. State of Bombay [(1954) 2 SCC 992]* to stress that each case must be decided on its own facts and that Section 197 CrPC must not be construed too narrowly. It was held that it is not the duty but the act which has to be examined because an official act can be performed in the discharge of official duty as well as in the dereliction of it.

The Supreme Court usedthe case of Amrik Singh v. State of Pepsu [AIR 1955 SC 309]* to hold that if the act is directly concerned with official duty, sanction is necessary.

The Supreme Court used the case of Matajog Dobey v. H.C. Bhari [AIR 1956 SC 44]* to establish that there must be a reasonable connection between the act and the discharge of official duty. The act must bear such relation to the duty that the accused could lay a reasonable, but not a pretended or fanciful claim, that he did it in the course of the performance of his duty.

The Supreme Court used the case of Dhannjay Ram Sharma v. M.S. Uppadaya and Others [AIR 1960 SC 745]* to clarify that opportunity to commit an offense due to official duty is not sufficient for Section 197 CrPC.

The Supreme Court used the case of P. Arulswami v. State [(1967) 1 SCR 201]* to stress the “quality” of the act and that it must be directly connected with official duties.

The Supreme Court used the case of Harihar Prasad Etc. v. State of Bihar [(1972) 3 SCC 89]* to state that it is no part of a public servant’s duty to enter into a criminal conspiracy.

The Supreme Court used the case of B. Saha and Others v. M.S. Kochar [(1979) 4 SCC 177]* to hold that the offense must be committed in official capacity or under color of office.

The Supreme Court used the case of State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Budhikota Subbarao [(1993) 3 SCC 339]* to elaborate on how to balance narrow and wide construction of Section 197 CrPC.

The Supreme Court used the case of R. Balakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala and Another [(1996) 1 SCC 478]* to stress that the quality of the act must be looked into and that there is no general proposition that conspiracy charges are always outside the scope of Section 197 CrPC.

The Supreme Court used the case of Shambhoo Nath Misra v. State of U.P. and Others [(1997) 5 SCC 326]* to reaffirm that the act must be in furtherance of official duties and that the protection is for honest officers.

The Supreme Court used the case of State of Orissa and Others v. Ganesh Chandra Jew [(2004) 8 SCC 40]* to restrict the protective cover to acts done in the discharge of “official” duty or purported exercise of “official” duty.

The Supreme Court used the case of S.K. Zutshi and Another v. Bimal Debnath and Another [(2004) 8 SCC 31]* to adopt the reasoning in Ganesh Chandra Jew (supra).

The Supreme Court used the case of K. Kalimuthu v. State [(2005) 4 SCC 512]* to adopt the reasoning in Ganesh Chandra Jew (supra).

The Supreme Court used the case of Sankaran Moitra v. Sadhna Das and Another [(2006) 4 SCC 584]* to hold that the act must have a reasonable connection with the official duty.

The Supreme Court used the case of Choudhury Parveen Sultana v. State of West Bengal and Another [(2009) 3 SCC 398]* to state that misuse of authority is not part of official duty.

The Supreme Court used the case of Urmila Devi v. Yudhvir Singh [(2013) 15 SCC 624]* to hold that public functionaries cannot resort to harassment under the cloak of official duty.

The Supreme Court used the case of Rajib Ranjan v. R. Vijaykumar [(2015) 1 SCC 513]* to hold that criminal conspiracy or misconduct is not part of official duty.

The Supreme Court used the case of Inspector of Police and Another v. Battenapatla Venkata Ratnam and Another [(2015) 13 SCC 87]* to hold that the purpose of Section 197 CrPC is not to shield corrupt officials.

The Supreme Court used the case of Surinderjit Singh Mand and Another v. State of Punjab and Another [(2016) 8 SCC 722]* to hold that illegal detention is not an act done in the discharge of official duty.

The Supreme Court used the case of Parvat Singh and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2020) 4 SCC 33]* to reiterate that a statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC is inadmissible in evidence.

The Supreme Court used the case of Birbal Nath v. State of Rajasthan [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1396]* to reiterate the limited applicability of statements under Section 161 CrPC.

The Supreme Court used the case of Pukhraj v. State of Rajasthan and Another [(1973) 2 SCC 701]* to hold that the necessity of sanction may reveal itself in the course of progress of the case.

The Supreme Court used the case of State of Bihar v. Kamla Prasad Singh and Others [(1998) 5 SCC 690]* to reaffirm that the court must consider all materials available on record while determining whether the public servant was “acting in the discharge of his official duty”.

The Supreme Court used the case of Bakhshish Singh Brar v. Gurmej Kaur and Another [(1987) 4 SCC 663]* to emphasize the need to balance the protection of public servants and the rights of citizens.

The Supreme Court used the case of P.K. Pradhan v. State of Sikkim [(2001) 6 SCC 704]* to hold that the question of sanction can be raised at any time after cognizance.

The Supreme Court used the case of Devinder Singh v. State of Punjab [(2016) 12 SCC 87]* to observe that some questions about the requirement of sanction cannot be decided without evidence.

Final Order

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court of Allahabad. The court held that the CJM, Firozabad, rightly took cognizance of the charge sheets against the respondents. The court clarified that the acts of conspiracy and creating a false alibi do not fall under the ambit of official duty and therefore, no sanction was required for prosecuting the respondents. The matter was remanded back to the Trial Court for further proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The ratio decidendi of the judgment is that public servants cannot claim protection under Section 197 of the CrPC for acts of conspiracy and creating false evidence, as these acts are not considered to be in the discharge of their official duties. The court emphasized that the protection under Section 197 is not limitless and must be balanced with the need to ensure accountability of public servants. The court held that the acts of conspiracy to commit murder and creating a false alibi do not fall under the ambit of official duty, thus no sanction was required for prosecuting the respondents.

Flowchart of the Judgment

Ratio Table

Sentiment Analysis

The sentiment of this judgment is largely critical of public servants who misuse their authority and engage in criminal activities. The Supreme Court has taken a strong stance against shielding corrupt officials under the guise of official duty. The judgment emphasizes the importance of accountability and the need to ensure that public servants are not immune from prosecution for their criminal acts.

Sentiment Table