Summary
The Supreme Court quashed the chargesheet and summoning order against a BIS officer who, while on deputation as Presiding Officer of the FSSAI Internal Complaints Committee, had filed a counter affidavit before the CAT and dealt with the complainant. Her acts were in discharge of official duty, so previous sanction under Section 197 CrPC was necessary; Section 197 recognises no 'deemed sanction', and the competent authority (BIS) had expressly refused sanction.
Issues
- Whether previous sanction under Section 197 CrPC was required to prosecute the appellant for acts done as Presiding Officer of the Internal Complaints Committee.
- Whether sanction can be treated as 'deemed' to have been granted when the competent authority does not decide within the stipulated time.
- Whether the High Court ought to have quashed the chargesheet and summoning order under Section 482 CrPC.
Provisions considered
- Section 197(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Bars cognizance of an offence alleged against a public servant while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duty without previous sanction. The test is whether the act has a reasonable connection with official duty; as the appellant acted as ICC Presiding Officer, sanction from BIS was a condition precedent and none was granted. (¶¶ 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32)
- Section 197 (no deemed sanction), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The Court held the section contains no concept of deemed sanction; neither Vineet Narain nor Subramanian Swamy lays one down, and the Court will not read into the statute a suggestion addressed to Parliament that has not been enacted. (¶¶ 30, 31)
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The High Court erred in declining to quash the proceedings despite the absence of sanction and its later express refusal; the Supreme Court quashed the chargesheet and summoning order qua the appellant. (¶¶ 18, 32)
Held
- The appellant joined FSSAI on deputation and became ICC Presiding Officer only after the ICC had reported and the accused officer had approached the CAT; her counter affidavit, filed in her official capacity, merely set out the ICC's findings and sought dismissal of his application, cast no aspersions on the complainant, and was followed by an application to amend it once the complainant chose to appear independently, which showed no criminal intent. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21, 22)
- The test for requiring sanction is whether the act is wholly unconnected with official duty or has a reasonable connection with it; if the act complained of is directly concerned with official duty, sanction is needed irrespective of whether the duty was properly discharged (following Amrik Singh, Amod Kumar Kanth and Gurmeet Kaur). (¶¶ 23, 26, 27, 28)
- Since it was not seriously disputed that the appellant filed the affidavit and dealt with the complainant as ICC Presiding Officer, previous sanction from BIS, her parent department and competent authority, was necessary; the Magistrate erred in taking cognizance without it, and the prosecution could not survive after BIS refused sanction within the stipulated period. (¶¶ 23, 29)
- Section 197 CrPC does not provide for deemed sanction on the expiry of a time limit. Vineet Narain dealt with CBI and CVC procedures, not Section 197, and Subramanian Swamy concerned the Prevention of Corruption Act, where the deemed-sanction idea was only a suggestion to Parliament in a concurring opinion; the Court cannot read such a mandate into the statute. (¶¶ 30, 31)
- Absence of the required sanction vitiated the very initiation of the criminal proceeding against the appellant, and the High Court erred in not quashing it. (¶ 32)
Result
Appeal allowed; the chargesheet No. 01/2022 dated 02.07.2022, the summoning order and all consequent steps quashed qua the appellant.