Trial court can frame charges in absence of sanction: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, February 9

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that the trial court can frame charges in the absence of prosecution sanction if the offence was committed by employee-accused during the course of the service, but not in the discharge of official duties.

The assertion by Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi came in a case where the counsel for the petitioner-accused, among other things, argued that the trial court could not have framed the charges as sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of the CrPC was refused by the Railways Department, of which the petitioners and the complainant were employees.

The matter was placed before Justice Bedi’s Bench after the accused filed a petition quashing order dated December 20, 2019, passed by a Chief Judicial Magistrate, whereby charges for criminal breach of trust and criminal conspiracy under Sections 409 and 120-B of the IPC were ordered to be framed. Also challenged was another order dated November 29, 2021, passed by an Additional Sessions Judge, whereby their revision was dismissed.

The Bench was told that the case had its genesis in a complaint alleging that the accused took away and tampered with the “relevant record pertaining to service period of the complainant” to involve him in a case. It resulted in the complainant being charge-sheeted.

Justice Bedi asserted committing an offence under Section 409, for which the petitioners had been charge-sheeted, was not a part of one’s official. Admittedly, the offence was committed during the course of the service, but not in the discharge of official duties. The petitioners’ act in taking away the document, as alleged, could never be a part of their official duty. As such, prior sanction for prosecution under Section 197 was not required.

Referring to a plethora of the Supreme Court and the High Court judgments, Justice Bedi added that the magistrate was required to examine the final investigation report or the charge-sheet under Section 173 of the CrPC and the attached documents “to frame charges or not”.

Even otherwise, only a prima facie case was to be seen at the time of framing charges. A high degree of suspicion was sufficient to frame charges. The court was not to examine the statements/documents in the report under Section 173(2) of the CrPC so as “to record a judgment of conviction or acquittal”.

Dismissing the petition, Justice Bedi asserted there was no illegality in either the registration of an FIR, the framing of charges or in the sessions court dismissing the criminal revision against the order framing charges.

High Court’s contention

Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi asserted the offence was committed during the course of the service, but not in the discharge of official duties. The petitioners’ act in taking away the document, as alleged, could never be a part of their official duty. Prior sanction for prosecution was not required.