High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2008-10-06Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.

K.V. Prabhakaran v. Kanaka Latha and State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:CRL.R.P. 2666/2008

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: M. Sasidharan Nambiar
Judgment Date: 2008-10-06
Court Decision / Holding: Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.
Final Disposition: Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

K. V. Prabhakaran

Respondents

Kanaka Latha
State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P. Vijaya Bhanu
• M. Revikrishnan

Counsels for Respondents

• C. M. Nazar (Public Prosecutor)
• G. Sreekumar (Chelur)
• K. Ravi (Pariyarath)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court of Kerala decision deals with a Criminal Revision Petition filed by K. V. Prabhakaran, a Circle Inspector of Police, challenging the framing of charges in SC 1222/2005 by the Additional Sessions Court, Palakkad. The petition asserts that framing the charges under various IPC sections (341, 324, 352, 511 read with 376, 354, 509 and 450) and related provisions under the Kerala Abkari Act and the PDPP Act occurred without sanction under section 197(1) CrPC, rendering the order void for want of lawful sanction. The respondents contend that no sanction is required, arguing the acts alleged were not performed in the discharge of official duty and that the protective shield of section 197 applies only in appropriate circumstances. The High Court reaffirms that Section 197(1) is intended to guard public servants from vexatious proceedings, and adopts the Supreme Court’s test for Section 197(3) as explained in Rizwan Ahmed Javed Shaikh v. Jammal Patel (2001) 5 SCC 7, as followed in Sankaran Moitra v. Sadhna Das (2006 (4) SCC 584). The court considers the cited authorities, including Sunil Kumar v. State of Kerala and Shoukkathali v. State of Kerala, but finds that the acts alleged — including attempted rape and related offences — do not appear to have been done in the discharge of official duty. Consequently, sanction under section 197(1) is not required, and the criminal revision petition is dismissed.

Provisions of Law Cited

IPC sections 341IPC section 324IPC section 352IPC section 511IPC section 376IPC section 354IPC section 509IPC section 450Kerala Abkari Act, section 55(i)CrPC section 197(1)IPC sections 225, 332, 294(b), 427 read with section 34PDPP Act, section 3(1)(e)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

The real test to attract the applicability of Section 197(3) is whether the act which is done by a public officer and is alleged to constitute an offence was done by the public officer while acting in his official capacity though what he did was neither his duty nor his right to do as such public officer.
Section 197(1) is intended to guard against vexatious proceedings against public servants from office, except by or with sanction of the Government.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner’s counsel argued that framing charges without sanction under section 197(1) CrPC is invalid. Since the offences were alleged to be committed by a public servant in a manner connected with official duties, sanction is a prerequisite. The reliance was placed on Rizwan Ahmed Javed Shaikh v. Jammal Patel (2001) 5 SCC 7 and followed in Sankaran Moitra v. Sadhna Das; other cited authorities were urged to underscore the protective scope of Section 197.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that there is no necessity for sanction if the acts were not performed as part of official duties; prosecution may proceed without such sanction when the acts fall outside official capacity. They relied on the line of authorities suggesting that the protective shield of Section 197 is not automatically triggered absent a clear connection to official duty.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Rizwan Ahmed Javed Shaikh v. Jammal Patel	2001 (5) SCC 7	Positive	The Supreme Court’s ratio on the test under Section 197(3) is adopted and applied by the Kerala High Court in determining whether sanction is required.
Sankaran Moitra v. Sadhna Das and another	2006 (4) SCC 584	Positive	Cited as part of the development of the real-test doctrine for Section 197; followed the Rizwan framework.
Sunilkumar v. State of Kerala	2007(2) KLD 274	Mentioned Only	Cited among authorities but not central to the court’s primary reasoning.
Shoukkathali v. State of Kerala	2005(3) KLT 634	Mentioned Only	Cited in the list of authorities, without being pivotal to the decision.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against K.V. Prabhakaran v. Kanaka Latha and State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT :** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR** **MONDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2008 / 14TH ASWINA 1930** ## **Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2666 of 2008()** **-----------------------------------------** ## **SC.1222/2005 OF ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, (ADHOC NO.1), PALAKKAD** **....................** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED** **------------------------------------------------** **K.V. PRABHAKARAN, C.I.OF POLICE, POLICE TRAINING SCHOOL, DHARMAPURAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. NOW WORKING AS C.I.OF POLICE, CRIME BRANCH C.I.D., SIG III, KOZHIKODE.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:** **-----------------------------------------------------------** **1. KANAKA LATHA, W/O. KUMARAN NAIR** **@ RAJAN NAIR, VALPPARAMBIL VEEDU, THRIKKADIRI VILLAGE, KIZHOOR DESOM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK PALAKKAD.** **2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM.** **PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) FOR R1 ADV. SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) FOR R1** **THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/10/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **CRL. RP.NO.2666/2008** ## **ORDER ON CRL. MA.8068/2008 IN CRL. RP.2666/2008** ## **DISMISSED** **06/10/2008.** **SD/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE** **Rs/** ## **M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.** =========================== Crl.R.P. NO. 2666 OF 2008 =========================== Dated this the 6[th] day of October,2008 ORDER Petitioner a Circle Inspector of Police filed this petition challenging the framing of charge for the offences under sections 341,324,352, 511 read with section 376, 354, 509 and 450 of IPC by Additional Sessions Court, Palakkad in S.C.1222/2005. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned counsel appearing for first respondent were heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for petitioner is that in the absence of sanction as provided under section 197(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, learned Sessions Judge should not have framed the charge when a case is registered against first respondent complainant and others as Crime No.7/2003 of Cherpulassery Police Station under section 55(i) of Kerala Abkari Act CRRP 2666/2008 2 and section 341, 225,332,294(b) and 427 read with section 34 IPC and also under section 3(1)(e) of P.D.P.P. Act and in such circumstance, the order framing charge is to be set aside. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court in **Rizwan Ahmed Javed Shaikh v. Jammal Patel (2001) 5 SCC 7), Sunilkumar v. State of Kerala (2007(2) KLD 274, Shoukkathali v. State of Kerala (2005(3) KLT 634) and Sankaran Moitra v. Sadhna Das and another (2006 (4) SCC 584).** 4. Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure is intended to guard against vexatious proceedings against public servants from office except by or with sanction of the Government. The essential conditions are (i) The offence mentioned must be committed by a public servant. (2) The public servant must be employed in connection with the affairs of the union or a State and is not removable save by or with the sanction of the union or State Government. (3) The act was committed CRRP 2666/2008 3 while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. In order to invoke section 197(1) there must be a reasonable connection between the act and the official duty. Even if the act exceeds, what is strictly necessary for discharge of the duty, sanction is necessary. The real test to be applied is laid down by the Apex Court in Rizwan Ahmed Javed Shaikh's case (supra) as followed in Sankaran Moitra's case (supra) as follows:- “15. The real test to be applied to attract the applicability of Section 197(3) is whether the act which is done by a public officer and is alleged to constitute an offence was done by the public officer while acting in his official capacity though what he did was neither his duty nor his right to do as such public officer. The act CRRP 2666/2008 4 complained of may be in exercise of the duty or in the absence of such duty or in dereliction of the duty, if the act complained of is done while acting as a public officer and in the course of the same transaction in which the official duty was performed or purported to be performed, the public officer would be protected.” 5. The allegation against the petitioner is that he took first respondent complainant to her bedroom and attempted to commit rape on her and also outraged her modesty and when she tried to escape, she was kicked and hurt. On the allegations, it cannot be said that the acts alleged against the petitioner are acts done in the course of his official duty or even purporting to be in discharge of his official duty. Hence sanction under section 197 (1) is not necessary. CRRP 2666/2008 5 Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- ## M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006