Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
Case: Samarendra Nath Kundu & Anr. v. Sadhana Das & Anr.
Date: April 1, 2026
Subject: Criminal Law | Section 197 CrPC | Sanction for Prosecution | Custodial Death | Police
Background:
The Supreme Court upheld criminal proceedings against subordinate rank officers of the Calcutta Police, holding that a subsequent extension of sanction protection under Section 197 CrPC cannot be used to defeat proceedings that were validly initiated at a time when no such bar existed.
Facts of the Case:
In 2001 a criminal complaint was filed alleging that three police officials were involved in the custodial killing of the complainant’s husband. At the time the Magistrate took cognizance of the offence, subordinate police officials including constables and station level officers did not enjoy protection under Section 197 CrPC which requires prior government sanction for prosecution of certain public servants.
Nearly a decade later on November 19, 2010 the West Bengal Government issued a notification under Section 197(3) extending sanction protection to subordinate police ranks involved in maintaining public order.
Relying on this 2010 notification the accused officers argued that the proceedings against them could not continue without prior sanction and sought quashing of the case.
The Calcutta High Court rejected their plea and upheld the proceedings. The accused officers then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Issue:
Whether a subsequent notification extending the benefit of Section 197 CrPC to subordinate police officers can nullify criminal proceedings that were validly commenced before such extension.
Supreme Court Held:
Dismissing the appeal and affirming the High Court’s decision the Court made the following important observations:
- Date of Cognizance is Crucial:
The crucial point for determining the applicability of Section 197 CrPC is the date on which cognizance is taken and not any subsequent developments in law. Once cognizance is validly taken in the absence of any bar later legal changes cannot undo the proceedings already commenced. - Subsequent Bar Cannot Invalidate Earlier Proceedings:
A subsequent bar on taking cognizance of an offence against a public servant cannot invalidate proceedings already commenced when there was no requirement of sanction for prosecution at the time cognizance was taken. - Officer Not Directly Removable by Government:
As per Fakhruzamma v. State of Jharkhand (2013) 15 SCC 552 prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC is required only for prosecuting public servants who could be removed by the Government. Since the appellant being an officer in charge of a police station was not directly removable by the Government he could not have availed the benefit of Section 197 CrPC in the first place. - Subsequent Notification Cannot Be Relied Upon:
The appellant cannot rely on the 2010 notification extending Section 197 CrPC protection to all subordinate police personnel of the Calcutta Police to defeat proceedings that were validly initiated in 2001 when no such protection existed.
The Court observed:
“A subsequent bar on taking cognizance of an offence against a public servant would not invalidate the proceedings already commenced upon taking cognizance when there was no requirement of sanction for prosecution.”
Result: Appeal dismissed. Criminal proceedings upheld.