Chapter XIV

Section 197 CrPC: Prosecution of Judges and public servants

New Law Update (2024)

Section 218 BNSS

TRIAL COURT

Punishment​

Procedural – Cognizance

Cognizable?

Bailable?

Compoundable?

Bare Act Text

(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:
Provided that where the alleged offence was committed by a person referred to in clause (b) during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force in a State, clause (b) will apply as if for the expression “State Government” occurring therein, the expression “Central Government” were substituted.
Explanation— For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that no sanction shall be required in case of a public servant accused of any offence alleged to have been committed under section 166A, section 166B, section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 370, section 375, section 376, section 376A, section 376AB, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Union while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.
(3) The State Government may, by notification, direct that the provisions of Sub-Section (2) shall apply to such class or category of the members of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order as may be specified therein, wherever they may be serving, and thereupon the provisions of that Sub-Section will apply as if for the expression “Central Government” occurring therein, the expression “State Government” were substituted.
(3A) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-Section (3), no Court shall take cognizance of any offence, alleged to have been committed by any member of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order in a State while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force therein, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.
(3B) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Code or any other law, it is hereby declared that no sanction shall be required for prosecution of any Judge, Magistrate or public servant for any offence punishable under sections 7, 11, 13, 15, and 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) read with section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) or for any offence punishable under sections 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16 and 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, if the alleged offence was committed prior to the coming into force of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (16 of 2018).

Important Sub-Sections Explained

Sub-Section (1) and Explanation

Sub-section (1) is pivotal as it mandates prior government sanction for prosecuting judges, magistrates, and certain public servants for acts done in their official capacity, thereby safeguarding them from harassment. The Explanation is equally crucial as it explicitly exempts public servants from needing this sanction for specific serious offences under the Indian Penal Code, particularly those related to sexual assault and other severe crimes.

Landmark Judgements

Matajog Dobey v. H.C. Bhari (1956):

This Supreme Court judgment established the test for determining whether an act by a public servant requires sanction under Section 197 CrPC. It clarified that sanction is necessary if the act is “in discharge of his official duty” and there is a reasonable connection between the act and the official duty, even if the act is erroneous or an excess of power.

P.K. Pradhan v. State of Sikkim (2001):

The Supreme Court reiterated that for Section 197 CrPC to apply, the act must be directly connected with the official duty. Sanction is required if the alleged offence has a reasonable nexus or correlation with the official duty of the public servant, meaning it was committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty.

Devinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2016):

The Supreme Court discussed the scope of protection under Section 197 CrPC, particularly in light of the Explanation. It emphasized that the act must be intimately connected with or form part of the duty itself to necessitate sanction, and highlighted the circumstances where the Explanation makes sanction unnecessary for certain sexual offences.

Draft Format / Application

Leave a Comment

Scroll to Top