Supreme Court clarifies scope of Section 197 CrPC for public servants in forgery case: Indra Devi vs. State of Rajasthan (23 July 2021)

Date of the Judgment: 23 July 2021

Citation: (2021) INSC 446

Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. and Hemant Gupta, J.

Can a public servant be prosecuted for actions related to forgery and fraud without prior sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a case involving allegations of forgery and conspiracy against a clerk in a municipality. The court examined whether the clerk’s actions were directly connected to his official duties, thus requiring prior sanction for prosecution. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Hemant Gupta.

Case Background

Indra Devi, the appellant, and her husband, Bhanwar Lal, purchased two plots in Khasra No. 1179/03 in Barmer. One plot was sold to Megharam, and another to Chetan Choudhary. A residential house and shops were built on the plot purchased in the name of Bhanwar Lal. Megharam allegedly tampered with the agreement to defraud Indra Devi and her family, in collusion with Surender Kumar Mathur, the then executive officer of the Municipality, and a clerk, who is the Respondent No. 2, Yogesh Acharya. The dimensions of the plot sold to Megharam were enlarged, and the Khasra number was changed from 1179/03 to 1143/04. This came to light when Indra Devi and her husband received a court notice while they were in physical possession of the plot. The accused persons are alleged to have committed offences of fraudulently making a scheduled caste woman and her family homeless. Yogesh Acharya, the clerk, was not named in the initial FIR.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court dismissed Yogesh Acharya’s application under Section 197 of the CrPC, noting that he was not named in the FIR. The court opined that Yogesh Acharya failed to bring irregularities to the knowledge of the competent officers, which led to the issuance of the forged lease. The trial court held that his actions were not in discharge of his official duty, therefore, protection under Section 197 of the CrPC was not applicable. Yogesh Acharya then filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC before the High Court of Judicature at Jodhpur, which allowed his petition, relying on a similar case, Devi Dan v. State of Rajasthan, where it was held that sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC was required before prosecuting a public servant for acts done during the discharge of his duties. Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, the complainant, Indra Devi, and the State of Rajasthan filed special leave petitions before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) 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—
(a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government;
(b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Government.”

This section protects public servants from unnecessary harassment by requiring prior sanction from the government before a court can take cognizance of an offense committed by them while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their official duties. The purpose is to shield public servants from malicious or vexatious prosecution, while also ensuring that corrupt officers are not protected. The key question is whether the act committed is directly and reasonably connected with the official duty.

Arguments

Appellant’s (Indra Devi) Arguments:

• The involvement of Respondent No.2 (Yogesh Acharya) came to light during the investigation.
• Yogesh Acharya failed to bring irregularities to the knowledge of his superiors, which was instrumental in issuing the forged lease.
• He conspired with his superiors in dishonestly concealing the forgery and intentionally omitting the date of the proceedings on the order sheet.
• Such actions of forging documents cannot be considered as acts conducted in the course of his official duties.
• Therefore, Section 197 of the CrPC does not provide protection to Yogesh Acharya.

Respondent’s (Yogesh Acharya) Arguments:

• The FIR only mentioned Megharam and some unnamed officials.
• Surender Kumar Mathur, the Executive Officer, was granted protection under Section 197 of the CrPC for the same transaction.
• Sandeep Mathur, a Junior Engineer, was also granted protection under Section 197 of the CrPC for the same transaction.
• Yogesh Acharya was simply carrying out his official duty, which pertained to allotment, regularization, conversion of agricultural land, and all kinds of work relating to land and conversion.
• The application of Megharam was processed through the office, and the file was initially put up before the Executive Officer, who directed inspection.
• Since the two key people involved in the process were granted protection, Yogesh Acharya, as a Lower Division Clerk, should also receive similar protection.
• Relying on the judgments of the Supreme Court in B. Saha & Ors. Vs. M.S. Kochar [(1979) 4 SCC 177] and State of Maharashtra Vs. Dr. Budhikota Subbarao [(1993) 3 SCC 339], it was argued that Section 197 of the CrPC should be interpreted liberally to grant protection to public servants for actions directly and reasonably connected with their official duties.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the actions of Respondent No. 2 (Yogesh Acharya) were within the scope of his official duties, thus requiring prior sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC for prosecution.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

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 B. Saha & Ors. Vs. M.S. Kochar [(1979) 4 SCC 177]* to emphasize that Section 197 of the CrPC should be interpreted liberally to protect public servants acting in their official capacity.
• The Supreme Court also relied on State of Maharashtra Vs. Dr. Budhikota Subbarao [(1993) 3 SCC 339]* to determine that the act must have a reasonable connection with the discharge of duties.
• The Court considered Section 197 of the CrPC to highlight the need for prior sanction to protect public servants from unnecessary harassment.
• The High Court’s reliance on Devi Dan v. State of Rajasthan was approved by the Supreme Court.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure consistent treatment of public servants involved in the same transaction. The court emphasized that if superior officers were granted protection under Section 197 of the CrPC, then a subordinate clerk involved in the same matter should also receive similar protection, provided their actions were connected with their official duties. The court also stressed that the purpose of Section 197 of the CrPC is to protect public servants from malicious prosecution, while also ensuring that corrupt officers are not protected.

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them because the actions of Yogesh Acharya were found to be directly connected to his official duty. The court emphasized the need for consistent application of the law, especially when dealing with public servants involved in the same transaction.

The Supreme Court stated, “The real question, therefore, is whether the act committed is directly concerned with the official duty.”

The Supreme Court further stated, “We are, thus, not able to appreciate why a similar protection ought not to be granted to Respondent No.2 as was done in the case of the other two officials by the Trial Court and High Court respectively.”

The Supreme Court also noted, “The sanction from competent authority would be required to take cognisance and no sanction had been obtained in respect of any of the officers.”

The majority opinion was delivered by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, with Justice Hemant Gupta concurring. There were no dissenting opinions.

Key Takeaways

• Public servants are entitled to protection under Section 197 of the CrPC for actions that are directly and reasonably connected to their official duties.
• Consistency in the application of law is crucial, especially when dealing with multiple public servants involved in the same transaction.
• Prior sanction from the competent authority is required before a court can take cognizance of offenses committed by public servants while acting in the discharge of their official duties.
• The purpose of Section 197 of the CrPC is to protect public servants from malicious prosecution, while also ensuring that corrupt officers are not protected.
• The judgment clarifies that even if a public servant is not named in the FIR initially, they can still claim protection under Section 197 of the CrPC if their role is connected to their official duties.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that public servants are entitled to protection under Section 197 of the CrPC for actions that are directly and reasonably connected to their official duties, and that consistency in the application of law is crucial. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position that public servants should not be subjected to unnecessary harassment for actions taken in the course of their duties, while also ensuring that this protection is not extended to corrupt officials. The judgment clarifies the scope of Section 197 of the CrPC, particularly in cases involving multiple public servants, and emphasizes the need for a consistent approach when evaluating claims for protection under this provision.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that Yogesh Acharya, the clerk, was entitled to protection under Section 197 of the CrPC, as his actions were connected to his official duties. The court emphasized the need for consistent treatment of public servants involved in the same transaction and reinforced the importance of prior sanction before prosecuting public servants for actions taken in the course of their official duties. This judgment clarifies the scope of Section 197 of the CrPC and provides guidance on its application in cases involving allegations of forgery and fraud against public servants.