In Om Prakash (supra), this Court, after referring to
various decisions, particularly pertaining to the police excess,
summed-up the guidelines at paragraph-32, which reads as
follows:
“32. The true test as to whether a public
servant was acting or purporting to act in
discharge of his duties would be whether the
act complained of was directly connected with
his official duties or it was done in the discharge
of his official duties or it was so integrally
connected with or attached to his office as to be
inseparable from it (K. Satwant Singh). The
protection given under Section 197 of the Code
has certain limits and is available only when the
alleged act done by the public servant is
reasonably connected with the discharge of his
official duty and is not merely a cloak for doing
the objectionable act. If in doing his official
duty, he acted in excess of his duty, but there is
a reasonable connection between the act and
the performance of the official duty, the excess
will not be a sufficient ground to deprive the
public servant of the protection (Ganesh
Chandra Jew). If the above tests are applied to
the facts of the present case, the police must
get protection given under Section 197 of the
Code because the acts complained of are so
integrally connected with or attached to their
office as to be inseparable from it. It is not
possible for us to come to a conclusion that the
protection granted under Section 197 of the
Code is used by the police personnel in this
case as a cloak for killing the deceased in cold
blood.”
(Emphasis supplied)
10. In our view, the above guidelines squarely apply in the
case of the appellant herein. Going by the factual matrix, it is
evident that the whole allegation is on police excess in
connection with the investigation of a criminal case. The said
offensive conduct is reasonably connected with the
performance of the official duty of the appellant. Therefore, the
learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the case
without the previous sanction of the State Government. The
High Court missed this crucial point in the impugned order.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 722 OF 2015
D. T. Virupakshappa Vs C. Subash
various decisions, particularly pertaining to the police excess,
summed-up the guidelines at paragraph-32, which reads as
follows:
“32. The true test as to whether a public
servant was acting or purporting to act in
discharge of his duties would be whether the
act complained of was directly connected with
his official duties or it was done in the discharge
of his official duties or it was so integrally
connected with or attached to his office as to be
inseparable from it (K. Satwant Singh). The
protection given under Section 197 of the Code
has certain limits and is available only when the
alleged act done by the public servant is
reasonably connected with the discharge of his
official duty and is not merely a cloak for doing
the objectionable act. If in doing his official
duty, he acted in excess of his duty, but there is
a reasonable connection between the act and
the performance of the official duty, the excess
will not be a sufficient ground to deprive the
public servant of the protection (Ganesh
Chandra Jew). If the above tests are applied to
the facts of the present case, the police must
get protection given under Section 197 of the
Code because the acts complained of are so
integrally connected with or attached to their
office as to be inseparable from it. It is not
possible for us to come to a conclusion that the
protection granted under Section 197 of the
Code is used by the police personnel in this
case as a cloak for killing the deceased in cold
blood.”
(Emphasis supplied)
10. In our view, the above guidelines squarely apply in the
case of the appellant herein. Going by the factual matrix, it is
evident that the whole allegation is on police excess in
connection with the investigation of a criminal case. The said
offensive conduct is reasonably connected with the
performance of the official duty of the appellant. Therefore, the
learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the case
without the previous sanction of the State Government. The
High Court missed this crucial point in the impugned order.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 722 OF 2015
D. T. Virupakshappa Vs C. Subash
Citation;2015(4) crimes 214 SC
