K KALIMUTHU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) All these appeals involve identical question of law and are, therefore, taken up together. In each of these cases, on the allegation that the appellant was guilty of various offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC) and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (in short the Act), information was lodged, investigation was undertaken and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. The appellant in each case filed petition before the Principal Special Judge for CBI cases, Chennai, contending that in the absence of requisite sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code) it was beyond jurisdiction of the Court to take cognizance of the alleged offences. The stand taken in the petitions was that the alleged acts were directly and reasonably connected with official duty and since there was a direct nexus and relationship between the discharge of his alleged act and the official duties and because of the absence of requisite sanction as contemplated under Section 197 of the Code, cognizance could not have been taken. The plea found favour with the concerned court in the matter of K. Kalimuthu. The State questioned correctness of the judgment by filing revision taking the stand that Section 197 of the Code has no application to the facts of the case. The plea was accepted by the High Court, which is the subject-matter of challenge in the appeal relatable to SLP (Crl.) No.1770/2004. But the plea was not accepted by the concerned court in the other two cases to which the appeals arise out of SLP (Crl.) Nos.2926/2004 and 681/2005. In these cases High Court rejected the plea raised by the concerned appellants about protections available under Section 197 of the Code.

(3.) In all the three cases the High Court took the view that the person claiming protection under Section 197 of the Code has to show that there is a reasonable connection between the act complained of and the discharge of official duty. Accordingly, the order passed by the Special Judge for CBI cases, in favour of accused-appellant in the appeal relating to SLP(Crl.) No.1770/2004, was set aside and in other two cases view adopted by the Special Judge for CBI cases was maintained and the applications filed by the appellants-S. Chandramohan and N. Chanderasekaran were dismissed.