In a significant ruling on the scope of prior sanction under criminal law, the Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal filed by two police officials accused in a custodial death case, holding that protection under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) was not available to them.
Background of the Case
The case, Samrendra Nath Kundu & Anr. vs Sadhana Das & Anr., arose from a complaint filed by a woman alleging that her husband was killed by police officials during an incident linked to election-day violence.
According to the complaint, senior and subordinate police officers were involved in the alleged assault that led to the victim’s death. The trial court had taken cognizance in 2001 and summoned the accused under serious charges including murder and criminal conspiracy.
One of the co-accused, a senior police officer, had earlier secured relief from the Supreme Court on the ground that prosecution required prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C., as the act was connected to official duty.
Subsequently, the magistrate extended the same benefit to the present appellants. However, the High Court later reversed that decision, directing proceedings against them to continue.
The bench of Justice Manoj Misra examined whether subordinate police officers could claim the same protection as their senior counterpart.
The Court clarified that the earlier relief granted to the senior officer was not on merits of innocence, but solely due to lack of sanction required for prosecuting certain categories of public servants.
“The proceedings were quashed… for want of sanction, not because no offence was made out,” the bench noted.
Importantly, the Court highlighted a key legal distinction: only those public servants who cannot be removed from service without government sanction are entitled to protection under Section 197(1) Cr.P.C.
Since the appellants were subordinate officers who could be dismissed without such sanction, the Court held that they did not fall within this protected category.
On Applicability of 2010 Notification
The appellants also relied on a 2010 notification issued by the West Bengal government extending sanction protection to certain categories of police personnel.
However, the Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the requirement of sanction must be assessed at the stage when cognizance is taken.
“The bar applies at the stage of cognizance… a subsequent notification cannot affect proceedings where cognizance was already validly taken,” the bench observed.
Since cognizance in this case was taken in 2001 well before the notification the benefit could not be applied retrospectively.
Concluding that neither the earlier Supreme Court ruling nor the 2010 notification could shield the appellants, the Court dismissed the appeal.
“The appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed,” the Court held, while clarifying that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations.
Case Details
Case Title: Samrendra Nath Kundu & Anr. vs Sadhana Das & Anr.
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 654 of 2013
Judge: Justice Manoj Misra with Justice J.B. Pardiwala
Decision Date: April 1, 2026
