Section 197 Sanction Needed Where Act Has Reasonable Connection With Official Duty: Supreme Court

Under a warrant of the Income Tax Investigation Commission, four officials searched two Calcutta premises for books and papers, with police assistance authorised (paras 4, 11-12). The appellant, a darwan, complained that the officials broke open a door, tied him and assaulted him; another complainant alleged he was assaulted, held and taken to a police station when he protested (para 5). In one case the Magistrate discharged the accused for want of sanction under Section 197 and the Calcutta High Court affirmed it (paras 2, 6); in the other the High Court in revision quashed the proceedings (paras 3, 7). The complainants appealed by special leave (para 1).

The challenge to Section 5(1) of the 1947 Act was not entertained, as it had not been raised earlier, and Section 197 does not violate Article 14: protecting public servants from harassment is a rational classification, and "a discretionary power is not necessarily a discriminatory power" (para 14). Under Section 197 the offence must be related to the discharge of official duty; "It does not matter even if the act exceeds what is strictly necessary", as that is for the trial (para 16). Approving Hori Ram Singh, Gill and the Court's own decisions, it held that the act must bear such relation to the duty that the accused could lay "a reasonable, but not a pretended or fanciful claim" (paras 17-19). Sanction need not be judged only on the complaint; "Whether sanction is necessary or not may have to be determined from stage to stage" (para 20). A lawful search carries the right to use reasonable force against obstruction (paras 21, 23). The acts alleged were related to the officials' duties and the injuries suggested only a scuffle, so this was "an obvious case for sanction" (paras 24-25).