I am honoured to receive your Response . Thank you Much appreciated 🙏🙏
Originally posted by : Saurabh Kamble
According to Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the prior sanction is required if a government employee is charged with a crime that was allegedly committed while they were acting or pretending to act in the course of their official duties.According to the court's decision in Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh, a public servant must be sanctioned if the alleged offence was committed "while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty" The yardstick to be used to determine whether the alleged offence was committed "while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty" is to form a prima facie opinion as to whether the act of omission for which is accused (Dr. Budhikota Subbarao v. the State of Maharashtra). So, the fundamental inquiry is whether the act is directly related to the official responsibility Subject to the restriction that the alleged act done by the public servant is reasonably connected with the discharge of his official duty and not merely a cloak for doing the objectionable act, the protection provided under Section 197 is intended to protect responsible public servants against the institution of potentially malicious criminal proceedings for offences alleged to have been committed by them when they were functioning or purporting to act as public servants.Courts in multiple cases have held that, because the prosecution of a public official for corruption contains a component of public interest that directly affects the rule of law, non-compliance with a mandatory time cannot and should not automatically result in the dismissal of criminal proceedings.It was noted by the court in State of W.B. v. Mohd. Khalid, (1995) 1 SCC 684: 1995 SCC (Cri) 266] that taking cognizance of an offence is distinct from issuing sanction. When the Magistrate applies his judicial mind to the facts indicated in a complaint, a police report, or upon information obtained from any other person that an offence has been committed, cognizance is taken at the initial stage. When the court decides to take action against the offenders against whom a prima facie case is made out after evaluating the evidence put before it, that is when the court issues the process.In Vijay Rajmohan v. State, the Supreme Court explained the legislative intent behind the 2018 amendment to the Prevention of Corruption Act, which gives the appointing authority an upper limit of four months (usually three months but one month additional in certain circumstances) under Section 19 to grant the prosecution sanction against the disloyal public servant, as well as the principle of accountability necessitating a time-bound and thoughtful decision-making process.The SC also ruled that the Prevention of Corruption Act's three-month window for the appointing authority to decide whether to penalise or prosecute a public servant is mandatory.According to Section 8(1)(f) of the CVC Act, the competent authority is responsible for the delay of sanction and is subject to judicial review and administrative action by the CVC (Central Vigilance Commission).
