On September 9, 2025, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the trial court’s framing of charges against a public servant in a corruption case, ruling that the question of sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC for IPC offenses can be examined at any stage of the proceedings, based on the evidence presented to determine if the acts were committed in discharge of official duties. A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta dismissed two special leave petitions (Nos. 2671/2021 and 2729/2021) filed by Ram Sagar, challenging the Uttarakhand High Court’s January 25, 2021, order that rejected his revision petitions against the framing of charges.
The petitioner, facing trial for offenses under Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant), 477A (falsification of accounts), and 420 (cheating) of the IPC, along with Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, conceded the validity of the PC Act charges but argued that the IPC charges were invalid due to the absence of sanction under Section 197 CrPC. Senior Advocate K. Parameshwar, for the petitioner, contended that this rendered the trial for IPC offenses void ab initio.
The Supreme Court, however, held the challenge premature, observing: “We are of the view that the issue of sanction under Section 197 CrPC can be taken up before the Trial Court at any stage of the proceedings. It would all depend on the nature of the evidence that the prosecution may lead in the course of the trial.” The bench heard arguments from Parameshwar and Shagun Thakur for the CBI before dismissing the petitions, affirming the High Court’s stance.
This ruling clarifies that the necessity of sanction under Section 197 CrPC—requiring prior approval for prosecuting public servants for acts done in official capacity—depends on evidentiary context, not pre-trial assumptions.
Case Details: Ram Sagar v. Central Bureau of Investigation | SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2671/2021 & 2729/2021
Lawcutor 