Prosecution Of Judges And Public Servants

INTRODUCTION

No court must have jurisdiction to hear cases relating to the prosecution of crimes committed by officers and judges, according to Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from 1973. The offence must have been committed while the defendant was serving as a judge, magistrate, or other officer who is not subject to removal from office by the government. It is applicable to staff members who were employed by the federal government and state governments at the time of the offence. The criminal Union Armed Forces personnel were not prohibited from appearing before any Indian court. The State Government may notify members of the State Army that they are subject to the Special Regime clause. The State's military forces may be subject to the officers of the Central Government's authority, which is comparable to the provisions of this section, as long as they are meeting the people's needs and adequately ensuring public safety, as assessed by the Government.

Objectives of Section 197 CrPC

When authorities and judges refuse to cooperate with people's requests, they frequently commit the crime of malicious prosecution. It takes false accusations that threaten to target the majority of the population for these authorities to admit to bias against people based on social, economic, or political position. An premeditated false charge against a person to bring them into discredit and pursue them for a crime they didn't commit is known as malicious prosecution. This is an abuse of the legal system for personal vengeance and an abuse of the legal process for nefarious ends. A public person cannot assert immunity from prosecution sanctions in a number of circumstances governed by the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Supreme Court has concluded. Protection turned proved to be a problem that caused corruption case prosecutions to be delayed. In this instance, the fine made a distinction between a corrupt officer who was penalised under the clause and an honest officer who was falsely accused. To determine the amount of protection provided to these officials while carrying out their official duties, consideration must be given to the relevant circumstances and evidence. The subject of penalties may come up at any point throughout the proceedings, and each stage requires a determination on whether or not the sanctions are enforceable.Dr Subramanian Swamy vs. Dr Manmohan Singh and Anna.The Supreme Court ruled in AIR(2012) that the possibility of malicious prosecution must be removed by legal methods in order to guarantee that officials carry out their duties honestly and impartially. Although this did not completely rule out the possibility of corruption in government institutions, it did require the court to create public interest rules. The special treatment of these officials violates Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which upholds the right to equality for all citizens, but there is an exemption to the rule that serves as a safeguard against discrimination. In the fight against aggravated corruption, procedural arrangements should be created to ensure fairness, justice, and good governance.

No court shall have jurisdiction to try cases against officers and judges in the course of crimes committed, according to Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, unless the prior consent of the relevant authority has been acquired, which is absolutely necessary. A previous or current judge, magistrate, or government official who is not permitted to carry out his official duties with the approval of the government must be involved in the offence. It applies to employees who were on the job when state and local crimes were committed. Also, the members of the Union Armed Forces who committed the crime have not been brought before an Indian court.. By notifying the State Government, members of the State Army may be subject to the Special Regime provision. The military forces of a State that are serving a public purpose may be similarly subordinate to the Central Officers, provided that they abide by the terms of this section and the government-established public safety protections. Any judge hired by the state government or a member of the armed forces would operate as an officer of the central government following the dissolution of the state apparatus and the implementation of Article 356 of the Indian Constitution in the state.

Scope of The Section 137 

Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code defines the scope of  criminal law officers in India as follows: 

• Any judge qualified to carry out judicial duties either on their own or collectively with other members of the judiciary Officials of the court in charge of conducting investigations into and reporting on legal concerns, as well as any other responsibilities given to them by the court. aiding judges, panchayat members, and all jurors. any arbitrator who receives a case for decision-making. 

• Officers in charge of deterring crime, informing the public about crimes, and prosecuting offenders officials tasked with overseeing government assets as part of their mandates to look into, assess, or look into and report on financial matters.

If the individual mentioned in point was the one who allegedly committed the crime, according to this section's provision. The year 2007 shall apply in the same manner as if the word "State Government" were substituted therein for the term "Central Government" during the time that the announcement described in Article 356, Part 1 of the Constitution was in effect in the state. According to Section 197(2), no court shall trial an offence committed by a member of the

Union armed forces in the course or alleged course of his official responsibilities without the Central Government's prior sanction.Despite subsection (3), Section 197(3A) states that no court shall try any offence allegedly committed by a member of the armed forces in charge of maintaining public order in the State who acted or purported to act in the course of his official duties while the prohibition published under Article 356(1) of the Constitution was in effect without the Central Government's prior approval. It is hereby directed that, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Code or any other Act, any sanction imposed by a State Government or any order made by a court in respect of such sanction during the period beginning 1991 August 20 expires on the day immediately preceding the date on which the President gives his assent under Section 197(3B) of the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed during the period when a State Government was in power. 1) The Constitutional clauses that were in effect in the state are no longer valid, and as a result, the central government must apply sanctions and the courts must rule on their legality.

According to Section 197(4), the prosecution of a judge or public prosecutor can be decided by whom, how, and for what offence or offences, depending on the Central Government's or State Government's preference. The court before which the trial will be held must be specified by the clerk, who must also be made. R.R. Chari V State of UP'AIR 1951(3) [R.R. Chari V State of UP AIR 1951.The Supreme Court of India ruled in regards to Section 197 that officers who are suspected of committing crimes while performing or ostensibly performing official responsibilities cannot be fired from their positions without the State or Central Government's permission. The form of this protection is such that, prior to the criminal court learning of the alleged crime committed by such agents, the competent authorities should have fined the said prosecutor.In other words, the competent authorities must determine for themselves if there is a prima facie case for filing charges, and that this determination was made as a precaution prior to filing charges. In the case of "K. Satwant Singh V State of Punjab AIR(1959)," which is very explicitly mentioned in Section 197(1), the purpose of the section is to safeguard public officials from spurious prosecution.Further While examining the applicability of Section 197 CrPC, the SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, the Constitutional Court, stated that it appears clear to the Court that some crimes cannot be considered to have been committed by public officials while acting, or pretending to act, in the performance of their official functions. One such offence is receiving a bribe, which is criminal under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Another is helping or abetting.Fraud and various forms of incitement to commit fraud are crimes that cannot be committed by an official while acting or not acting in the course of performing their official duties since there is no necessary link between the commission of these crimes and the performance of official duties. Just the potential or opportunity to perpetrate the crime is terminated by the officer's responsibilities and official standing. An official function that the officer could legitimately, but not purportedly or fictitiously, claim to have undertaken in the course of his duties has no reasonable connection to the fraud or cooperation in it.

Reasonable Connection 

As stated in thisDobey V. H. C. Bhari - AIR 1955 [Airline Dobey V.H.C. Bhari (1955)] The appellant claimed in this court's Supreme Court that during the search, Revenue Agency personnel pried open the front door of the home and rifled through desk boxes and drawers. The petitioner alleged that the police battered and tied him up. The Magistrate opened the trial after determining after reviewing the aforementioned complaint that a prima facie case had been established. The topic of a sanction's absence came up throughout the trialThe Supreme Court concluded that while ordinary individuals who are not as involved do not need this protection, civil officials must be safeguarded from harassment while performing their official tasks. The Supreme Court has also ruled that there needs to be a reasonable connection between the act and the performance of an official duty; the act needs to be connected to the duty in such a way that the defendant can claim that he did it in the performance of his duty reasonably, but not by implication or fiction. The imposition of a fine is not merely a legal requirement. AIR1984 (2) 351 "R.S. Nayak V.A.R. Antulay" AIR 1984(2) 351: "V.A.R. AntulayThe Supreme Court ruled in this case that the authority with the power to remove an officer from office for abusing or abusing another officer may also impose the consequence of prosecution because only that authority is capable of determining whether abuse or abuse has taken place. abuse of position by a public official rather than a third party According to a series of rulings, before imposing sanctions, the sanctioning body should pay attention to the relevant facts, collected evidence, and other relevant circumstances.Before bringing charges against public officials, the aforementioned standards must be scrupulously followed because the imposition of a sanction is not merely a solemn and inviolable provision that removes the protection of public officials from baseless criminal prosecution. The legislator purposefully granted the competent authority the ability to remove the official from his position by enforcing sanctions for an obvious reason, so that only this authority, after presenting the facts and evidence, could determine whether the accusation is baseless or speculative or whether the official committed a serious crimeThe appellant claimed that during the search, Revenue Agency agents pushed open the front entrance of the house and rifled through the desk boxes and drawers in the case MatajogDobey V HC Bhari' -AIR 1955[MatajogDobey V HC Bhari AIR 1955] - Supreme Court. The petitioner alleged that the police battered and tied him up. The Magistrate opened the trial after determining after reviewing the aforementioned complaint that a prima facie case had been established. The topic of a sanction's absence came up throughout the trialThe Supreme Court concluded that while ordinary individuals who are not as involved do not need this protection, civil officials must be safeguarded from harassment while performing their official tasks. The Supreme Court has ruled that there must be a reasonable connection between the act and the discharge of an official duty; the act must be so connected to the duty that the defendant can legitimately assert that he performed it in the course of his official duties, but not by implication or fabrication.

Jurisprudence Related To Section 197 CrPC

Here are some important jurisprudences related to Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code: 

State of Bihar v. ChandanBasu, AIR (2014[ N.K Ganguly V CBI ,New Delhi AIR 2016 ]) There are no mandatory fines for prosecuting public employees under Indian Criminal Code Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, and 471. Jew Ganesh v. State of Orissa, AIR (2004). If the accused official was no longer a public official on the day the court learned of the violation of the Anti-Bribery Act, Section 197 of the Criminal Code is not applicable State of Bihar v. PP Sharma (1991). In the matter at hand, it was determined that the decision to apply an enforcement measure was administrative in nature rather than quasi-judicial. CBI v. Neera Yadav (2017) Given this, It was concluded that a fine in accordance with Article 197 of the Criminal Code is not necessary in situations where a fine has already been imposed under Section 19 of the Law on Prevention of Corruption. UP UOI v. Bailiffs' Association (2002) If any criminal offence is attributed to the Bailiff in the performance or claimed performance of his responsibilities, we order that no offence shall be lodged for inquiry under a FIR without the Chief Judge concerned.

Recent Jurisprudence 

 New Delhi: "N.K. Ganguly v. CBI - In accordance with Art. 120B read in conjunction with Articles 13, Part 1 and Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the Prevention Code in the 1988 Corruption

Act, a criminal case involving an alleged illegal and illegal transfer of property No. 119, Institute of Cytology Noida e-mail Preventive Oncology (ICPO), ICPO-ICMR (Indian Council of Medical Research) Cooperative Group Housing Limited, Noida, was filed against the applicant and other officials. collaborated in a criminal plot, misused their official position, and transferred the property illegally. Those who couldn't join the society per its bylaws were given membership anyhow.Even though they lacked the jurisdiction to approve such a transfer order, the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority authorities illegally and unjustifiably permitted the transfer of the aforementioned plot from ICPO to ICPO-ICMR Housing Society. The Supreme Court stated that reading the indictment form demonstrates that there is enough evidence on file to establish the existence of the alleged conspiracy. Article 197 of the Criminal Code is directly applicable to the facts of this case when the same is taken into account. Prior to the special court taking cognizance of the breach after the final report pursuant to section 173(2) was submitted, the respondent should have obtained an initial sanction from the Central Government.. The Supreme Court examined the precedent that both sides had cited. According to the Supreme Court, it is obvious that the accused must have committed the claimed offence while performing official duties in order to receive prior approval from the responsible authorities under Section 197 CrPC. In order to determine whether the accused should get a preliminary sanction from the appropriate government before the special court hears the alleged offence against the accused, the court must also carefully review the claims made against the plaintiffs in the final report..Because concerns were raised by the defendant to the applicants in the final report that was under review in the case at hand, it was determined that the identified infractions were mandatory. It is crucial that the Special Court correctly determine whether ex. the central government should have taken the sanction under Section 197 CrPC before the respondent learned of it and issued an order summoning the petitioners to appear in this case, given the accusations made against the plaintiffs in the final report submitted by the defendant that they committed the alleged crimes in the course of their official duties. In the absence of any prior approval obtained from the Central Government to prosecute the petitioners, as required by Article 197 of the Criminal Code, the Supreme Court set aside the contested judgement and the judgement of the High Court and quashed the proceedings by hearing and summoning the petitioners under the Special Anti-Corruption Bureau (CBI).

Conclusion 

An autonomous pillar of democracy are the courts. In carrying out their responsibilities, officials and judges must conduct themselves morally and impartially. Corruption must be tackled from the bottom up because it is one of the barriers to the nation's progress. A significant barrier that must be addressed for democracy to work effectively is the attempt to influence public officials and courts by the wealthy who misappropriate their financial resources. To perform a rigorous and complete review of existing laws, which is currently a serious issue, takes more effort. Moreover, persons who carry out public duties on behalf of the government were referred to as civil servants. In order to safeguard them from ill-intentioned prosecution, they were shielded from charges in their official capacities. It was contended that any act that violated the requirement that there be a reasonable relationship between the offence committed and the discharge of official duties should be prosecuted. Before referring the matter to court, competent authorities should be required to conduct an analysis of the pertinent facts of the case and the available evidence in order to impose punishments.

Reference 

• https://www.studocu.com/in
• https://devgan.in/crpc/section/197/
• Brae Act

Details Article By-
Name - Priya Singh
BALLB, 5 year
Ajeenkya d y patil University, Pune