A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court addressed the need for sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for prosecuting public servants accused of criminal offenses. The primary issue was whether Mallikarjuna, a Village Accountant and public servant (Respondent No. 2), could be prosecuted without sanction for allegedly creating fraudulent documents under his official capacity. The High Court of Karnataka quashed the chargesheet and complaint against Respondent No. 2, stating that, as a public servant, he could not be prosecuted without a sanction from the competent authority. The Supreme Court held that not all actions of a public servant are protected under Section 197 Cr.P.C.; only those intrinsically connected with official duties qualify. The creation of fake documents, the Court ruled, did not constitute an act in the discharge of official duties, making the High Court’s quashing inappropriate. The Supreme Court reinstated the charges against Respondent No. 2 for further trial, indicating that public servants could be held accountable for actions outside their official scope.

Keywords: Public servant, Fabrication of records, Discharge of official duties, Sanction, Protective cover.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title: Shadakshari v. State of Karnataka & Anr.

ii) Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 256 of 2024

iii) Judgment Date: 17 January 2024

iv) Court: Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

vi) Author: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

vii) Citation: [2024] 1 S.C.R. 429 : 2024 INSC 42

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 197 (Sanction for prosecution of judges and public servants)
• Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 409, 419, 420, 423, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 473, read with Sections 149 and 34.

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case: None specified.

x) Related Law Subjects: Criminal Law, Public Administration Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The appeal arose from an order by the High Court of Karnataka that quashed criminal proceedings against Mallikarjuna, a public servant accused of document fabrication and forgery. In response to a complaint lodged by Shadakshari (Appellant), an FIR was registered against Mallikarjuna and others for allegedly creating fraudulent property documents, including death certificates of individuals still alive, to benefit certain individuals illegally. Although the investigating officer sought permission to prosecute, the competent authority denied sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. The High Court quashed the chargesheet and complaint, stating prosecution could not proceed without sanction. The appellant contested this in the Supreme Court, arguing that fabricating documents fell outside the official duties of a Village Accountant, and thus prosecution should proceed without the necessity of sanction.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. FIR and Initial Complaint: On 19 December 2016, the appellant lodged a First Information Report (FIR) alleging that Respondent No. 2, Mallikarjuna, and others created fake documents, including death certificates, family trees, and other records to transfer property unlawfully.

2. Charges: The FIR, registered as Crime No. 323/2016, involved various charges under the IPC, including criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery, and the use of forged documents.

3. Denial of Sanction: The investigating officer sought sanction from the competent authority to prosecute Mallikarjuna. However, the Deputy Commissioner, acting on the recommendation of the Additional Deputy Commissioner and legal advisor, denied this request.

4. High Court’s Decision: Mallikarjuna sought to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., and the Karnataka High Court upheld the motion, stating that prosecution could not proceed without a prior sanction from the competent authority.

5. Appeal to Supreme Court: Dissatisfied with the High Court’s order, the appellant approached the Supreme Court, contending that Mallikarjuna’s actions were not connected to his official duties as a Village Accountant, and thus the denial of sanction should not prevent prosecution.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether Section 197 Cr.P.C. requires sanction for prosecuting a public servant accused of acts outside the scope of their official duties.

2. Whether fabricating official documents as alleged can be considered part of official duties warranting protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C.

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Sanction Not Required for Unauthorized Actions: The appellant argued that creating fake documents does not constitute part of Mallikarjuna’s official duties as a Village Accountant. Thus, Section 197 Cr.P.C., which seeks to protect public servants for actions undertaken in the discharge of official duties, does not apply.

2. Legal Precedents Against Sanction for Criminal Actions: Relying on Shambhoo Nath Misra v. State of U.P. (1997), the appellant contended that the protection under Section 197 does not extend to acts like document fabrication and forgery, as these cannot be deemed integral to any lawful official function.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Necessity of Sanction for Public Servants: The counsel for Respondent No. 2 argued that sanction is indispensable under Section 197 Cr.P.C., as Mallikarjuna was acting in his official capacity. The prosecution without such sanction, they claimed, contravenes the procedural safeguards intended to prevent undue harassment of public servants.

2. Supporting Precedent: The respondent cited D. Devaraja v. Obais Sanders Hussain (2020), underscoring that actions closely related to official duties, even if wrongful, require sanction to uphold the procedural protection for public servants under Section 197 Cr.P.C.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

1. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 197: Specifies the requirement for prior sanction to prosecute judges and certain public servants for offenses alleged in the discharge of their official duties.

2. Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections Cited:

   • Section 409: Criminal breach of trust by public servant.
   • Section 420: Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
   • Section 465, 466, 467, 468: Forgery and forgery-related offenses.
   • Section 471: Use of forged documents as genuine.
   • Section 473: Counterfeit documents used to harm or deceive.

I) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

1. Limitation of Section 197 Protection: The Supreme Court reiterated that Section 197 Cr.P.C. does not protect public servants for all acts performed during service; it only covers those genuinely linked to official duty. Actions involving the creation of false documents for personal gain fall outside this scope.

2. Distinction from Official Acts: The Court emphasized that fabricating documents, as alleged in this case, cannot be considered an official duty. This interpretation supports a narrow application of Section 197, limiting its protection to lawful and official activities.

b. Obiter Dicta

The Court underscored that the procedural protection under Section 197 aims to prevent frivolous and vexatious prosecution, not shield wrongful acts unrelated to official duties. The judgment implied that expanding the protective ambit of Section 197 would encourage misuse by public servants acting outside lawful parameters.

c. Guidelines

1. Assessing Sanction Requirements: Authorities should closely examine the nature of the alleged acts against public servants. If actions fall outside the scope of authorized duties, the sanction requirement under Section 197 should not bar prosecution.

2. Clarity on Official Duties: Clear distinctions must be made between acts performed as part of official duties and actions leveraging official capacity for unauthorized purposes.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court’s decision strengthens accountability by clarifying that procedural protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. should not obstruct justice when public servants exploit their positions for unauthorized and personal gains. This interpretation provides a more refined framework for prosecuting misconduct by public officials, emphasizing that public duties do not encompass all actions performed under official capacity.

K) REFERENCES

Important Cases Referred:

1. State of Orissa v. Ganesh Chandra Jew, [2004] 3 SCR 504.
2. D. Devaraja v. Obais Sanders Hussain, [2020] 6 SCR 453.
3. Shambhoo Nath Misra v. State of U.P., [1997] 2 SCR 1139.
4. Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of Uttar Pradesh, [2013] 14 SCR 713.

Important Statutes Referred:

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 197
• Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 409, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 47