Case Note & Summary
The case involved an appeal by the appellant against a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court rejecting his revision petition concerning a complaint filed against him under Section 120(b) read with Sections 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant, an officer of a nationalised bank, contended that he fell within the definition of a public servant and thus required sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code for prosecution. The Metropolitan Magistrate had previously dismissed his objection, stating that Section 197 was not applicable as the appellant was removable from his position by a competent authority without the need for Government sanction. The High Court affirmed this view. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the case, noted that Section 197 is only applicable when a public servant cannot be removed from office without Government sanction. It concluded that the appellant was indeed removable by a competent authority, and therefore, the provisions of Section 197 did not apply. The court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the lower courts' interpretation of the law and the facts of the case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Sanction for Prosecution - Applicability of Section 197 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 197 - Section 197 applies only when a public servant is not removable from office without Government sanction. The court held that since the appellant could be removed by a competent authority, sanction was not required, affirming the lower courts' decisions (Paras 219B, 219D).
Issue of Consideration
Whether sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code was necessary for prosecuting the appellant.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower courts' decisions that Section 197 was not applicable as the appellant was removable from his office by a competent authority.
Law Points
- Sanction for prosecution
- public servant definition
- removal from office
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Indian Penal Code
