kapoorsatish (n/a) 05 June 2008

Help required

Section 197 CrPC protects public servants from being prosecuted withour sanction from Govt, whereas section 166,167,217,218 IPC talks for punishments for public servants acting against directions of law.

My query is a) are provision under CrPC & IPC contradicting, Is there any judgement of Supreme Court on this issue?

B) can police persons be tried by any citizen u/s 166,167,217,218 etc without obtaining sanctions from Govt.

c) If sanction is neccessary, how a citizen can obtain

d) can arbitrators be tried similarly as IPC describes them as "Public Servant"

S.K.Kapoor

Reply Follow

3 Replies

arunprakaash.m. (advocate) 05 June 2008

when a contradiction between procedural law and substantive law, substantive law prevail over procedural law.IPC substantive law,CRPC procedural law.

government servant can be procecuted after getting permission from the superior or highest authority in that particular dept. in some cases dist.collector as a Executive magistrate can give permission to procecute.

Ajay kumar singh (Advocate) 05 June 2008

Provisions of the Cr.P.C and the I.P.C are not contradictory.Now it is well settled that sanction is necessary only where the work done by the public servant is in discharge of his duty,otherwise not.

Hemant Agarwal (ha21@rediffmail.com Mumbai : 9820174108) 04 July 2008

Dear All,

The following is further "IN CONTEXT" to question in Topic.

Keep Smiling ... Hemant Agarwal

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Published on July 04 2008, Page 7, Hindustan Times, NewDelhi edition.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Acting beyond authority amounts to misconduct: High Court

AN EMPLOYEE can be dismissed for acting beyond his authority as it amounts to breach of discipline and misconduct, the Delhi High Court said on Thursday

The court gave the ruling while enhancing the punishment of 'compulsory retirement' given to a manager of the State Bank of India (SBI) found guilty on this count to 'dismissal'.

"The bank manager has to act and discharge his functions in accordance with the rules and regulations. Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline and misconduct. In the instant case the charges proved against the respondent are serious and grave in nature," observed a Bench of Chief Justice Ajit Prakash Shah and Justice S. Muralidhar.

Chaman Lal was found to have sanctioned loans in violation of banking regulations and bending rules to favour certain companies. He was also found guilty of serious lapses like opening a current account without any or proper introductory references and sanctioning loans without adequate security

The judges upheld the argument of the bank that being a branch manager Lal was required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity when dealing with public money