<p>The Supreme Court on Thursday held that a policeman cannot be prosecuted in absence of sanction, even if he has acted in excess of duty and there is a reasonable connection between the performance of official duty and alleged act of omissions or commissions.</p>.<p>"Sanction of the government, to prosecute a police officer, for any action related to the discharge of official duty, is imperative to protect the police officer from facing harassive, retaliatory, revengeful and frivolous proceedings," a bench of Justices R Banumathi and Indira Banerjee said. </p>.<p>The requirement of sanction would give an upright police officer the confidence to discharge his official duties efficiently, without fear of vindictive retaliation by initiation of criminal action, the court added.</p>.<p>The court was quick to point out that an offence committed entirely outside the scope of the duty of the police officer, would certainly not require sanction. To cite an example, a policeman assaulting a domestic help or indulging in domestic violence would certainly not be entitled to protection.</p>.<p>However, if an act is connected to the discharge of the official duty of investigation of a recorded criminal case, the act is certainly under colour of duty, no matter how illegal the act may be, the bench added.</p>.<p>The top court quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against then Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime), Bengaluru, D Devaraja and others for allegedly assaulting Owais Sabeer Hussain during the investigation of a case in 2013.</p>.<p>Senior advocate Sanjan Povayya and advocate Balaji Srinivasan, appearing for Devaraja, challenged the Karnataka High Court's order of January 31, 2018 that had declined to stay the proceedings.</p>.<p>They contended that despite having found the Magistrate's order of taking cognisance to be illegal without sanction under Section 197 Criminal Procedure Code, the high court has remanded the matter back and directed the petitioner to file a discharge application.</p>.<p>Allowing an appeal against the high court's order, the bench said, "The language and tenor of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act make it absolutely clear that sanction is required not only for acts done in discharge of official duty, it is also required for an act purported to be done</p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Thursday held that a policeman cannot be prosecuted in absence of sanction, even if he has acted in excess of duty and there is a reasonable connection between the performance of official duty and alleged act of omissions or commissions.</p>.<p>"Sanction of the government, to prosecute a police officer, for any action related to the discharge of official duty, is imperative to protect the police officer from facing harassive, retaliatory, revengeful and frivolous proceedings," a bench of Justices R Banumathi and Indira Banerjee said. </p>.<p>The requirement of sanction would give an upright police officer the confidence to discharge his official duties efficiently, without fear of vindictive retaliation by initiation of criminal action, the court added.</p>.<p>The court was quick to point out that an offence committed entirely outside the scope of the duty of the police officer, would certainly not require sanction. To cite an example, a policeman assaulting a domestic help or indulging in domestic violence would certainly not be entitled to protection.</p>.<p>However, if an act is connected to the discharge of the official duty of investigation of a recorded criminal case, the act is certainly under colour of duty, no matter how illegal the act may be, the bench added.</p>.<p>The top court quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against then Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime), Bengaluru, D Devaraja and others for allegedly assaulting Owais Sabeer Hussain during the investigation of a case in 2013.</p>.<p>Senior advocate Sanjan Povayya and advocate Balaji Srinivasan, appearing for Devaraja, challenged the Karnataka High Court's order of January 31, 2018 that had declined to stay the proceedings.</p>.<p>They contended that despite having found the Magistrate's order of taking cognisance to be illegal without sanction under Section 197 Criminal Procedure Code, the high court has remanded the matter back and directed the petitioner to file a discharge application.</p>.<p>Allowing an appeal against the high court's order, the bench said, "The language and tenor of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act make it absolutely clear that sanction is required not only for acts done in discharge of official duty, it is also required for an act purported to be done</p>
