Magistrate Can Order Probe Against Public Servant Only After Considering His Defence & Superior Officer’s...
🔹 Legal Background
Section 197 CrPC: Provides that when any public servant (not removable except by or with the sanction of the Government) is accused of an offence alleged to have been committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty, previous sanction of the competent authority is mandatory before the Magistrate can take cognizance.
Purpose → To protect honest officials from frivolous complaints while not shielding the corrupt.
🔹 Judicial Principles
Sanction is a condition precedent
Without prior sanction, the Magistrate cannot proceed against a public servant for acts connected with official duty.
Magistrate must apply mind
Before directing investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, the Magistrate must consider:
Whether the act was done in discharge of official duty.
Whether sanction is required.
The defence/explanation of the public servant.
Protection is not absolute
If the act is wholly outside the scope of official duty (e.g., demand/acceptance of bribe, sexual offence), then no sanction is needed.
🔹 Important Case Laws
1. Anil Kumar & Ors. v. M.K. Aiyappa (2013) 10 SCC 705
Held: Magistrate cannot order investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC against a public servant without prior sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Reason: Ordering probe itself amounts to “taking cognizance”.
2. State of Punjab v. Labh Singh (2014) 16 SCC 807
Held: Magistrate must carefully examine the complaint. If the alleged act was done in discharge of duty, sanction is necessary before proceeding.
3. Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh (2012) 3 SCC 64
Held: Sanction requirement is not a shield for corruption. Competent authority must decide sanction request within a reasonable time (preferably 3 months).
4. Matajog Dobey v. H.C. Bhari (1955) 2 SCR 925
Held: The test for sanction – whether the act has reasonable nexus with official duty. If yes → sanction required; if not → no sanction needed.
5. Manju Surana v. Sunil Arora (2018) 5 SCC 557
Held: Sanction is necessary for public servants under the PC Act before Magistrate can direct investigation, but no sanction is needed for preliminary enquiry by police.
🔹 Why Magistrate Must Consider Defence & Superior’s Sanction
To filter out frivolous complaints against public servants.
To prevent unnecessary harassment of officers performing their duty.
To maintain a balance – allowing genuine prosecution but protecting honest action.
Because the requirement of sanction is jurisdictional – without it, proceedings are void.
✅ Conclusion
The Magistrate cannot mechanically order a probe against a public servant. He must:
Examine whether the act was done in discharge of official duty.
Consider the defence of the public servant.
Ensure prior sanction from the competent authority if required.
Only if these conditions are satisfied can a valid investigation be directed.
RELATED Blog
0 comments