Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is applicable solely to acts performed in the discharge of a public servant's official duties. The Court emphasized that the fabrication of documents does not fall within the purview of official duties, establishing a clear distinction : Supreme Court
In the case of SHADAKSHARI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR., the Supreme Court, in a criminal appeal, ruled that obtaining prior sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not necessary when charging a public servant for creating fake documents, as such acts are not deemed part of official duties.
The High Court had previously quashed the criminal proceedings against the public servant due to the absence of prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC. However, the Supreme Court, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, reversed this decision. They allowed the criminal appeal filed by the complainant-appellant, emphasizing that criminal proceedings cannot be sustained against a public servant in the absence of prior sanction to prosecute, but clarified that Section 197 Cr.PC does not extend its protective cover to every act of a public servant in the course of their service. It is limited to acts done in the discharge of official duties.
The complainant alleged that the accused-public servant had fabricated official documents by misusing his position as a Village Accountant. The key issue was whether sanction was required to prosecute the accused-public servant for creating fake documents by misusing his official position.
The Supreme Court, in its observations, explained the scope of Section 197(1) of Cr.P.C. It cited the Shambhoo Nath Misra vs. State of U.P. judgment, stating that fabrication of records and misappropriation of funds by a public servant cannot be considered part of official duty. The Court also referred to the State of Orissa v. Ganesh Chandra Jew judgment, emphasizing that Section 197 does not cover every act or omission by a public servant but is limited to those done in the discharge of official duties.
Relying on these precedents, the Court concluded that manufacturing such documents or fabricating records cannot be considered part of the official duty of a public servant. Consequently, it held that the High Court erred in quashing the complaint and chargesheet and set aside the order, emphasizing that the judgment's observations are specific to the present challenge and should not be construed as an opinion on merit, while keeping all contentions open. The criminal appeal of the complainant was allowed by the Court.