“Section 197 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 is in pari materia with Section 197 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In State of Orissa v. Ganesh Chandra Jew, AIR 1955 SC 287 this Court interpreted use of the expression ‘official duty’ to imply, the act or omission must have been done by the public servant in course of his service and it should have been in discharge of his duty. Section 197 does not extend its protective cover to every act or omission done by a public servant while in service.

The protection given under Section 197 read with Section 170 of The Karnataka Police Act, 1963 has its limitations. The protection is available only when alleged act done by the public servant is reasonably connected with discharge of his official duty and his official duty is not merely a cloak for the objectionable act.

To cite an example, a policeman assaulting a domestic help or indulging in domestic violence would certainly not be entitled to protection. However if an act is connected to discharge of official duty of investigation of a recorded criminal case, the act is certainly under colour of duty, no matter how illegal the act may be.

To decide whether sanction is necessary, the test is whether the act is totally unconnected with official duty or whether there is a reasonable connection with official duty. In case of an act of a policeman, unconnected with his official duty, there can be no question of sanction.”

– Hon’ble Justice Indira Banerjee, D. Devaraja v. Owais Sabeer Hussain, [Criminal Appeal No. 458 of 2020].

The alleged indulgence of officers in cheating, fabrication of records or misappropriation cannot be said to be in discharge of their ‘official duty’. However, sanction is necessary if offence alleged against the public servant is committed by him “while acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duty”. And in order to find out whether alleged offence is committed “while acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duty”, yardstick to be followed is to form a prima facie view [State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Budhikota Subbarao, (1993) 3 SCC 339]. The real question, therefore, is whether act committed is directly concerned with official duty.

– Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Indra Devi v. State of Rajasthan, [Criminal Appeal No. 593 of 2021] decided on 23.07.2021.

_____

It follows, protection of Section 197(1) is available only to such public servants whose appointing authority is Central Government or State Government and not to every public servant.

K. Ch. Prasad v. Smt. J. Vanalatha Devi, (1987) 2 SCC 52 held, though a person working in a Nationalised Bank is a public servant, provisions of Section 197 are not attracted at all. Section 197 is not available to A. Sreenivasa Reddy since conditions built are not fulfilled.

– Hon’ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala, A. Sreenivasa Reddy v. Rakesh Sharma, [Criminal Appeal No. 2339 of 2023] decided on 08.08.2023.

_____

The purpose behind enactment of Section 197 must not be to shield corrupt officials [Inspector of Police v.  Battenapatla Venkata Ratnam, (2015) 13 SCC 87].

It is not possible to carve out one universal rule. Any attempt to lay down a homogenous standard would create unnecessary rigidity as regards scope of application.

It is essential, Court, while considering question of applicability, truly applies its mind to factual situation before it. One test which was laid down in this regard was, whether a public servant, if challenged, can reasonably claim, what he does, he does in virtue of his office. Later, this test came to be re-modulated. If in performing his ‘official duty’ a public servant acts in excess of his duty, such excess by itself will not be a sufficient ground to deprive protection under Section 197 if it is found that there existed a reasonable connection between act done and performance of his official duty. However, this protection must not be excessively stretched and construed as being limitless. It must be made available only when alleged act is reasonably connected with discharge of official duty and not merely a cloak for doing an objectionable act.

While deciding issue of sanction, it is not necessary for Court to confine itself to allegations made. It can take into account all material on record available. Courts must avoid premature staying or quashing of criminal trials since such a measure may cause great damage to evidence that may have to be adduced.

–  Hon’ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Om Prakash Yadav v. Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay, [Criminal Appeal Nos. 5267-5268 of 2024] decided on 13.12.2024.

_____

Also see, Suneeti Toteja v. State of U.P., [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 6898 of 2023] decided on 25.02.2025.