In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India has overturned an order by the Karnataka High Court, reviving a criminal complaint against a Village Accountant accused of fabricating official records. The apex court addressed the crucial question of whether sanction is necessary to prosecute a public servant accused of creating fake documents while misusing their official position.

The accused Village Accountant had sought relief from the Karnataka High Court through a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), aiming to quash the First Information Report (FIR) filed against him. The High Court, acknowledging the accused's status as a public servant, noted that the alleged offense took place during the discharge of official duties. Consequently, the prosecution could not proceed due to the lack of sanction to prosecute, leading to the quashing of the FIR and chargesheet.

Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, in their observations, challenged the High Court's decision. They opined that the manufacturing of documents or fabrication of records may not be considered part of the official duty of a public servant. The Supreme Court held that if this perspective is adopted, the High Court's decision to quash the complaint and chargesheet in their entirety was not justified.

The court further explained the purpose of sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of the CrPC. This provision aims to shield public servants discharging official duties from undue harassment resulting from frivolous criminal proceedings. However, the court emphasized that Section 197 does not extend its protective cover to every act or omission of a public servant during their service but is restricted to those acts or omissions done in the discharge of official duties.

According to the Supreme Court, consistent with its past decisions, the protective umbrella of Section 197 does not encompass actions that fall outside the scope of official duties. The court stated, "this court has been consistent in holding that Section 197 Cr.PC does not extend its protective cover to every act or omission of a public servant while in service. It is restricted to only those acts or omissions which are done by public servants in the discharge of official duties."

In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the Karnataka High Court's order, asserting that the High Court had erred in quashing the complaint and chargesheet entirely. By doing so, the Supreme Court clarified the limitations of the protective provisions for public servants and underscored the distinction between acts carried out in the discharge of official duties and those falling outside this purview. 

Case: Shadakshari v. State Of Karnataka & Anr,

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.256 OF 2024.

Click Read/Download judgment.