The Kerala High Court has ruled that a public servant does not require prior sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) when accused of insulting a Scheduled Caste (SC) woman and fabricating official records. The Court dismissed a revision petition filed by V.T. Jinu, a public servant, who sought to quash charges framed by the Special Court under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Court made it clear that the acts of caste-based insult and record fabrication cannot be considered part of a public servant’s official duties. Therefore, prosecution under such charges can proceed without any government sanction.
Read Also:- Kerala High Court Orders Passport Renewal Despite Interpol Red Corner Notice
“...the allegations of insulting and intimidating a member of the Scheduled Caste community and fabricating records to show conduct of a meeting are not matters would come within the official duties of a public servant and therefore in order to prosecute the offender though he is a public servant, no sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C is necessary.”
The case was heard by Justice A. Badharudeen, who based his judgment on the Supreme Court’s decision in Indira Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Another, where it was held that acts like cheating, record fabrication, and misappropriation by public servants are not connected to their official roles.
In this case, the complainant alleged that the petitioner and another accused, now deceased, abused her using caste-related insults while she was on official duty. They were also accused of forging documents to falsely claim that she had misappropriated funds related to “9 CB Bills,” leading to her suspension from service.
The petitioner had sought to discharge the charges under Sections 294(b), 465, 466, 474 read with Section 34 of the IPC, along with Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. He argued that the charges should not stand without sanction under Section 197 CrPC, which is required for prosecuting public servants for acts done during official duty.
However, the Court rejected this claim and observed:
“Holding so, no interference in the order impugned is necessary and thus the revision fails. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed.”
The High Court further emphasized that to determine whether an act was part of a public servant’s official duty, a prima facie view is sufficient. The act must have a reasonable connection to official duties to require prior sanction for prosecution.
Justice Badharudeen also referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sandeep G. v. State of Kerala to explain the legal principles around framing charges and discharge of accused persons under the CrPC.
The Court concluded that the acts alleged—humiliating a woman by caste and forging documents—clearly fell outside the scope of official duty and, therefore, did not attract protection under Section 197 CrPC.
Case Title: V.T. Jinu & Another v. State of Kerala & Others
Case Number: Crl.Rev.Pet. No. 15 of 2018
Counsel for the petitioners/accused: Smt. K.G. Mary & Sri. Arun P. Antony
Counsel for the respondents: Jibu T. S. (Public Prosecutor)
