Open iDraf
Birendra K. Singh v. State Of Bihar

Birendra K. Singh
v.
State Of Bihar

(Supreme Court Of India)

Criminal Appeal No. 340 of 2000 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3239 of 1999) | 07-04-2000


1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant is a Police Sub-Inspector. Now a complaint has been filed against him and some others for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation, inter alia, that the person killed in a police firing was actually murdered by the appellant and his companions. The Magistrate issued process to the appellant and the other accused persons. We are not aware whether the said process was issued after complying with the mandatory provision contained in Section 202(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as explained by this Court in Rosy v. State of Kerala (2000 SC 557). But the question now posed by the appellant was that the Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance of the offence without the sanction contemplated in Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The said objection was not accepted by the High Court and therefore the petition filed by the appellant was dismissed as per the impugned order.

3. We are of the opinion that the stage for raising such objection could be when the accused are called upon to address arguments under Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Such a stage would reach only if the case is committed to the Court of Session. The advantage for the accused and the State as well as for the complainant to wait till then is that the order of committal would be supported by the materials envisaged in Section 202 of the Code and the question can be considered in the light of such materials also. We permit the appellant to raise the contention relating to sanction under Section 197 of the Code before the Sessions Court at the appropriate stage mentioned above. If any such contention is raised, the same shall be dealt with and disposed of by a speaking order by the Sessions Court untrammelled by any observations made in the impugned order. It is needless to say that the appellant shall be released on bail if he files an application for the same on such conditions as the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya, deems fit to impose.The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Advocates List

For the Appearing Parties -----

For Petitioner
  • Shekhar Naphade
  • Mahesh Agrawal
  • Tarun Dua
For Respondent
  • S. Vani
  • B. Sunita Rao
  • Sushil Kumar Pathak

Bench List

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.T. THOMAS

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.P. SETHI

Eq Citation

(2000) 8 SCC 498

2000 (3) ACR 2107 (SC)

JT 2000 (8) SC 248

LQ/SC/2000/679

HeadNote

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sanction for prosecution — Section 197 — Police Officer — Objection to taking cognizance by Magistrate was rejected by High Court — Appellant Police Sub-Inspector approached Supreme Court — Leave granted — Held, the stage for raising an objection relating to sanction under Section 197 of the Code would be when the accused are called upon to address arguments under Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure — Appeal disposed of accordingly with liberty to raise the said objection before Sessions Court at the appropriate stage — Rosy v. State of Kerala (2000 SC 557): Referred / Considered