# INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ANOTHER v. BATIENAPATLA VEN KATA RATNAM AND ANOTHER

- **Citation:** [2015] 4 S.C.R. 609
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2015-04-13
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 129 of 2013
- **Bench:** Kurian Joseph, Adarsh Kumar Goel
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/inspector-of-police-and-another-v-batienapatla-ven-kata-ratnam-and-another-30704
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
s.482 - Proceedings u/ss. 420, 468, 477A, 1208 rlw
s. 109 of /PC - Quashed by High Court on the ground of noncompliance of s.197 Cr.P.C - Held: Proceedings not liable
B
c
to be quashed as the acts alleged cannot be said to be in D
discharge of official duty - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.420, 468.
477-A, 1208 and 109.
s. 197 - Sanction before prosecution of public servant
- Prosecuted for offences u!ss 420, 468, 477A, 1208 rlw
s.109 /PC - Held: Protection uls 197 is for advancing the E
cause of honesty, justice and good governance and not for
protecting corrupt officials - The acts alleged, cannot be said
to be in discharge of official duty- Hence, protection uls 197
not available in the present case - Penal Code, 1860 -
F
ss.420, 468, 477A, 1208 and 109.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Public servants have been treated as
special category u/s. 197 CrPC, to protect them from G
malicious or vexatious prosecution. Such protection
from harassment is given in public interest; the same
609
H
610
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 4 S.C.R.
A cannot be treated as shield to protect corrupt officials.
B
The provisions dealing with Section 197 CrPC must be
construed in such a manner as to advance the cause
of honesty, justice and good governance. [para 10] [614E-F]
Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh and another
2012 (3) SCR 52 = 2012 (3) SCC 64 - relied on.
2. The alleged indulgence of the officers in cheating,
fabrication of records or misappropriation cannot be
C said to be in discharge of their official duty. Their official
duty is not to fabricate records or permit evasion of
payment of duty and cause loss to the Revenue. If at
all the said view of sanction is to be considered, it could
0
be done at the stage of trial only. [para 11] [615-C-D]
Rajib Ranjan and others v. R. Vijaykumar (2015) 1
sec 513 - relied on.
Shambhoo Nath Misra v. State of UP and others 1997
E (2) SCR 1139 = 1997 (5) SCC 326; Parkash Singh Badal
v. State of Punjab and others 2006 (10) Suppl. SCR 197 =
2007 (1) sec 1 - referred to.
F
G
Case Law Reference
1997 (2) SCR 1139
referred to
para 7
2006 (10) Suppl. SCR 197 referred to
para 8
(2015) 1 sec 513
relied on
para 9
2012 (3) SCR 52
relied on
para 10

## Text

[2015] 4 S.C.R. 609
INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ANOTHER
A
V.
BATIENAPATLA VEN KATA RATNAM AND ANOTHER
(Criminal Appeal No. 129 of 2013 etc.)
April 13, 2015
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
s.482 - Proceedings u/ss. 420, 468, 477A, 1208 rlw
s. 109 of /PC - Quashed by High Court on the ground of noncompliance of s.197 Cr.P.C - Held: Proceedings not liable
B
c
to be quashed as the acts alleged cannot be said to be in D
discharge of official duty - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.420, 468.
477-A, 1208 and 109.
s. 197 - Sanction before prosecution of public servant
- Prosecuted for offences u!ss 420, 468, 477A, 1208 rlw
s.109 /PC - Held: Protection uls 197 is for advancing the E
cause of honesty, justice and good governance and not for
protecting corrupt officials - The acts alleged, cannot be said
to be in discharge of official duty- Hence, protection uls 197
not available in the present case - Penal Code, 1860 -
F
ss.420, 468, 477A, 1208 and 109.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Public servants have been treated as
special category u/s. 197 CrPC, to protect them from G
malicious or vexatious prosecution. Such protection
from harassment is given in public interest; the same
609
H
610
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 4 S.C.R.
A cannot be treated as shield to protect corrupt officials.
B
The provisions dealing with Section 197 CrPC must be
construed in such a manner as to advance the cause
of honesty, justice and good governance. [para 10] [614E-F]
Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh and another
2012 (3) SCR 52 = 2012 (3) SCC 64 - relied on.
2. The alleged indulgence of the officers in cheating,
fabrication of records or misappropriation cannot be
C said to be in discharge of their official duty. Their official
duty is not to fabricate records or permit evasion of
payment of duty and cause loss to the Revenue. If at
all the said view of sanction is to be considered, it could
0
be done at the stage of trial only. [para 11] [615-C-D]
Rajib Ranjan and others v. R. Vijaykumar (2015) 1
sec 513 - relied on.
Shambhoo Nath Misra v. State of UP and others 1997
E (2) SCR 1139 = 1997 (5) SCC 326; Parkash Singh Badal
v. State of Punjab and others 2006 (10) Suppl. SCR 197 =
2007 (1) sec 1 - referred to.
F
G
Case Law Reference
1997 (2) SCR 1139
referred to
para 7
2006 (10) Suppl. SCR 197 referred to
para 8
(2015) 1 sec 513
relied on
para 9
2012 (3) SCR 52
relied on
para 10
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 129 of 2013.
H
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.12.2007 of the
INSPECTOR OF POLICE v. BATTENAPATLA VENKATA 611
RATNAM
High Court of Judicature Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in
A
Criminal Petition No. 6213 of 2007
with
Crl. A. Nos. 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 130, 131, & 132 B
of 2013.
Guntur Prabhakar, Prerna Singh, D. Mahesh Babu for the
Appellants.
K. Maruti Rao, K. Subba Rao, Aniruddha P. Mayee, V.
C
Sridhar Reddy, V. N. Raghupathy for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KURIAN, J. 1. Whether sanction under Section 197 of 0
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred
to as 'CrPC') is required to initiate criminal proceedings in
respect of offences under Sections 420, 468, 477A, 1208
read with 109 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)
(hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'), is the question arising for E
consideration in these cases.
2. The District Registrar, Vijayawada lodged a complaint
with the Inspector of Police, CBCID Vijayawada on
07.07.1999. The main allegation against the respondents was
F
that while they were working as Sub-Registrars in various
offices in the State of Andhra Pradesh, they conspired with
stamp vendors and document writers and other staff to gain
monetary benefit and resorted to manipulation of registers and
got the registration of the documents with old value of the G
properties, resulting in wrongful gain to themselves and loss
to the Government, and thereby cheated the public and the
Government.
3. On the basis of the complaint, F.1.R. No. 35/1999 was H
612
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015) 4 S.C.R.
A
registered by the appellant, and after investigation, report
under Section 173(2) CrPC against 41 persons including the
respondents herein, was submitted before the Ill Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. The respondents
raised the objection that there was no sanction under Section
B 197 CrPC and hence the proceedings could not be initiated.
4. Learned Magistrate on 03.07.2007 passed an order
holding that:
C
"Whether the sanction is required under Section 197
Cr.PC. or not to be considered during the trial and it is
the burden on the complainant to prove that the accused
acted beyond in discharge of their official duties and
there is no nexus between the acts committed and their
o
official duties and at this stage the question that the
accused acted within their duties cannot be decided."
5. Aggrieved, respondents moved the High Court under
Section 482 CrPC leading to the impugned order whereby
E the criminal proceedings were quashed on the sole ground
that there was no sanction under Section 197 CrPC, and
hence the appeals.
6. Heard Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, Ms. Prerna Singh and
F Mr. D. Mahesh Babu, learned Counsel appearing for the
appellants and Shri K. Maruthi Rao, Mr. K. Subba Rao, Mr.
Aniruddha P. Mayee, Mr. V. Sridhar Reddy and Mr. V. N.
Raghupathy, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.
7. No doubt, while the respondents indulged in the
G alleged criminal conduct, they had been working as public
servants. The question is not whether they were in service or
on duty or not but whether the alleged offences have been
committed by them "while acting or purporting to act in
H discharge of their official duty". That question is no more res
INSPECTOR OF POLICE v. BATIENAPATLA VENKATA 613
RATNAM [KURIAN, J.]
integra. In Shambhoo Nath Misra v. State of U.P. and A
others111, at paragraph-5, this Court held that:
"5. The question is when the public servant is alleged
to have committed the offence of fabrication of record
or misappropriation of public fund etc. can he be said
B
to have acted in discharge of his official duties. It is not
the official duty of the public servant to fabricate the
false records and misappropriate the public funds etc.
in furtherance of or in the discharge of his official duties.
The official capacity only enables him to fabricate the C
record or misappropriate the public fund etc. It does not
mean that it is integrally connected or inseparably
interlinked with the crime committed in the course of the
same transaction, as was believed by the learned
Judge. Under these circumstances, we are of the D
opinion that the view expressed by the High Court as
well as by the trial court on the question of sanction is
clearly illegal and cannot be sustained."
8. In Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab and
E
others121, at paragraph-20, this Court held that:
"20. The principle of immunity protects all acts which the
public servant has to perform in the exercise of the
functions of the Government. The purpose for which they F
are performed protects these acts from criminal
prosecution. However, there is an exception. Where a
criminal act is performed under the colour of authority
but which in reality is for the public [pic]servant's own
pleasure or benefit then such acts shall not be protected G
under the doctrine of State immunity."
1 (1997) 5 sec 326
2 (2007) 1 sec 1
H
614
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 4 S.C.R.
A
and thereafter, at paragraph-38, it was further held that
"38. The question relating to the need of sanction under
Section 197 of the Code is not necessarily to be
considered as soon as the complaint is lodged and on
B
the allegations contained therein. This question may
arise at any stage of the proceeding. The question
whether sanction is necessary or not may have to be
determined from stage to stage."
c
9. In a recent decision in Rajib Ranjan and others v.
R. Vijaykumar£31, at paragraph-18, this Court has taken the
view that ... "even while discharging his official duties, if a
public servant enters into a criminal conspiracy or indulges
in criminal misconduct, such misdemeanour on his part is not
o to be treated as an act in discharge of his official duties and,
therefore, provisions of Section 197 of the Code will not be
attracted".
10. Public servants have, in fact, been treated as special
E category under Section 197 CrPC, to protect them from
malicious or vexatious prosecution. Such protection from
harassment is given in public interest; the same cannot be
treated as shield to protect corrupt officials. In Subramanian
Swamy v. Manmohan Singh and anothert41, at paragraphF 74, it has been held that the provisions dealing with Section
197 CrPC must be construed in such a manner as to advance
the cause of honesty, justice and good governance. To quote:
"74 .... Public servants are treated as a special class of
G
persons enjoying the said protection so that they can
perform their duties without fear and favour and without
threats of malicious prosecution. However, the said
protection against malicious prosecution which was ·
H 3 (2015) 1 sec 513
INSPECTOR OF POLICE v. BATIENAPATLA VENKATA 615
RATNAM [KURIAN, J.]
extended in public interest cannot become a shield to A
protect [pic]corrupt officials. These provisions being
exceptions to the equality provision of Article 14 are
analogous to the provisions of protective discrimination
and these protections must be construed very narrowly.
These procedural provisions relating to sanction must B
be construed in such a manner as to advance the
causes of honesty and justice and good governance as
opposed to escalation of corruption."
11. The alleged indulgence of the officers in cheating,
C
fabrication of records or misappropriation cannot be said to
be in discharge of their official duty. Their official duty is not
to fabricate records or permit evasion of payment of duty and
cause loss to the Revenue. Unfortunately, the High Court
missed these crucial aspects. The learned Magistrate has D
correctly taken the view that if at all the said view of sanction
is to be considered, it could be done at the stage of trial only.
12.Resultantly, the impugned orders are set aside.
Appeals are allowed. The criminal proceedings initiated being
E
of the year 1999, we direct the trial court to dispose of the
cases as expeditiously as possible at any date on or before
31.12.2015.
Kalpana K. Tripathy
Appeals allowed.
F