Sanction for prosecution under Section 197 Cr.P.C shall be obtained and presented before the Magistrate prior to stage of issuing of process to the accused under Section 204 Cr.P.C. At the same time, no sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C is required for presentation of a complaint before the Magistrate or for recording of sworn statement of the complainant by the Magistrate. Question of applicability of Section 197 Cr.P.C has to be considered after examination of the complainant and his witnesses if any, by way of recording of their sworn statements by the Magistrate. There is no option for the criminal Court except to dismiss the complaint in case sanction required under Section 197 Cr.P.C is not obtained prior to issuing of process to the accused. The prohibition for taking cognizance of offence contained under Section 197(1) Cr.P.C is a mandatory prohibition and has to be considered at the threshold of the case and not at a subsequent stage. Therefore, taking cognizance of the case against the petitioner/A-1 in this case by the lower Court is not in accordance with law and is liable to be quashed. -2015 A.P.(2010)MSKLAWREPORTS


Sanction for prosecution under Section 197 Cr.P.C shall be obtained and presented before the Magistrate prior to stage of issuing of process to the accused under Section 204 Cr.P.C. 
At the same time, no sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C is required for presentation of a complaint before the Magistrate or for recording of sworn statement of the complainant by the Magistrate. 
Question of applicability of Section 197 Cr.P.C has to be considered after examination of the complainant and his witnesses if any, by way of recording of their sworn statements by the Magistrate. 
There is no option for the criminal Court except to dismiss the complaint in case sanction required under Section 197 Cr.P.C is not obtained prior to issuing of process to the accused. 

The prohibition for taking cognizance of offence contained under Section 197(1) Cr.P.C is a mandatory prohibition and has to be considered at the threshold of the case and not at a subsequent stage. 

Therefore, taking cognizance of the case against the petitioner/A-1 in this case by the lower Court is not in accordance with law and is liable to be quashed. -2015 A.P.(2010)MSKLAWREPORTS

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS