The Supreme Court has clarified that a later expansion of prosecution safeguards for public servants cannot undo criminal proceedings that were validly initiated when no such protection existed. The ruling reinforces that the legality of cognizance must be judged on the law prevailing at the time the court first took notice of the offence.
A bench comprising two judges upheld the continuation of criminal proceedings against a subordinate officer of the Calcutta Police, rejecting his attempt to rely on a later government notification that extended the protection of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to lower-rank personnel. The Court agreed with the High Court’s view that the alleged offence occurred in 2000, when no prior sanction was required to prosecute such officers. As a result, a notification issued a decade later could not retrospectively block the case.
The Court emphasized that once cognizance has been lawfully taken, a subsequent legal bar cannot wipe out the proceedings. In other words, protections introduced later cannot be invoked to invalidate actions already completed under the earlier legal framework.
The judges also referred to precedent holding that prior sanction is required only for public servants removable by the government. Since the officer in question did not fall within that category at the relevant time, the benefit of Section 197 was unavailable to him. The later notification extending protection to subordinate police personnel in West Bengal, therefore, did not assist his case.
The dispute stemmed from a complaint filed in 2001 alleging custodial killing by police officials. When the Magistrate took cognizance, subordinate ranks such as constables and station-level officers did not enjoy sanction protection. In 2010, however, the state government extended this protection to such personnel involved in maintaining public order. The accused officers relied on this change to argue that the prosecution could not proceed without prior approval.
Rejecting the contention, the Court held that the decisive moment is the date of cognizance. If no sanction requirement existed then, later developments cannot reopen the issue. The judgment concluded that the extended protection does not apply to proceedings already underway.
The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
