GENERAL OFFICER COMMANDING v. CBI & Anr.

crime and such issue is required to be examined by the A sanctioning authority or by the court. It is quite possible that the official capacity may enable the pubic servant to fabricate the record or mis-appropriate public funds etc. Such activities definitely cannot be integrally connected or inseparably inter-linked with the crime committed in B the course of the same transaction. Thus, all acts done by a public servant in the purported discharge of his official duties cannot as a matter of course be brought under the protective umbrella of requirement of sanction. In fact, the issue of sanction becomes a question of c paramount importance when a public servant is alleged to have acted beyond his authority or his acts complained of are in dereliction of the duty. In such an eventuality, if the offence is alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in D discharge of his official duty, grant of prior sanction becomes imperative. It is so, for the reason that the power of the State is performed by an executive authority authorised in this behalf in terms of the Rules of Executive Business framed under Article 166 of the Constitution of India insofar as such a power has to be E exercised in terms of Article 162 thereof. In broad and literal sense ·cognizance' means taking notice of an offence as required under Section 190 Cr.P.C. ·cognizance' indicates the point when the court first takes judicial notice of an offence. The court not only F applies its mind to the contents of the complaint/police report, but also proceeds in the manner as indicated in the subsequent provisions of Chapter XIV of the Cr.P.C. [Paras 22-24, 39] [634-E-H; 635-A-B; D-H, 636-A-E; 646-D- F] G R. Balakrishna Pillai v. State of Kera/a & Anr. AIR 1996 SC 901: 1995 ( 6 ) Suppl. SCR 236; S. K. Zutshi & Anr. v. Bimal Debnath & Anr. AIR 2004 SC 4174; Center for Public Interest Litigation & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr. AIR 2005 SC 4413: 2005 (4) Suppl. SCR 77; Rakesh Kumar Mishra H 608 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 5 S.C.R. A v. State of Bihar & Ors. AIR 2006 SC 820: 2006 (1) SCR 124; Anjani Kumar v. State of Bihar & Ors. AIR 2008 SC 1992: 2008 (6) SCR 912; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sheet/a Sahai & Ors. (2009) a SCC 617: 2009 (12) SCR 1048; Bhanuprasad Hariprasad Dave & Anr. v. The State of Gujarat B AIR 1968 SC 1323: 11969 SCR 22; Hareram Satpathy v. Tikaram Agarwala & Ors. AIR 1978 SC 1568: 1979 (1) SCR 349; State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Budhikota Subbarao (1993) 3 SCC 339: 1993 (2) SCR 311; Anil Saran v. State of Bihar & Anr. AIR 1996 SC 204: 1995 (3) Suppl. SCR 58; c Shambhoo Nath Misra v State of U.P. & Ors. AIR 1997 SC 2102: 1997 (2) SCR 1 '139; Choudhury Parveen Sultana v. State of West Bengal ~~ Anr. AIR 2009 SC 1404: 2009 (1) SCR 99; State of Punjab & Anr. v. Mohammed Iqbal Bhatti (2009) 17 SCC 92: 2009 (11) SCR 790; The State of Andhra D Pradesh v. N. Venugopal & Ors. AIR 1964 SC 33: 1964 SCR 742; State of Maharashtra v. Narhar Rao AIR 1966 SC 1783: 1966 SCR 880; State of Maharashtra v. Atma Ram & Ors. AIR 1966 SC 1786; Prof Sumer Chand v. Union of India & Ors. (1994) 1 SCC 64: 1993 (2) Suppl. SCR 123; State of Orissa & Ors. v. Ganesh Chandra Jew AIR 2004 SC 2179: E 2004 (3 ) SCR 504; P. Arulswami v. State of Madras AIR 1967 SC 776: 1967 SCR 201; Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain v. Pandey Ajay Blwshan & Ors. AIR 1998 SC 1524: 1997 ( 5 ) Suppl. SCR 5i24; Matajog Dobey v. H. C. Bhari AIR 1956 SC 44: 1955 SCR 925; Sankaran Moitra v. Sadhna Das F & Anr. AIR 2006 SC ~1599: 2006 (3 ) SCR 305; Rizwan Ahmed .Javed Shaikh & Ors. v. Jammal Patel & Ors. AIR 2001 SC 2198: 2001 ( 3 ) SCR 766; S.B. Saha & Ors. v. M.S. Kochar AIR 1979 SC 1841: 1980 ( 1 ) SCR 111; Parkash Singh Badal & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors. AIR 2007 SC G 1274: 2006 (10) Suppl. SCR 197; P.K. Choudhury v. Commander, 48 BRTF (GREF) (2008) 13 SCC 229: 2008 (4) SCR 976; Nagraj v. State of Mysore AIR 1964 SC 269: 1964 SCR 671; Naga People's Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India AIR 1998 SC 431: 1997 (5) Suppl. SCR H 469; Jamiruddin Ansari v. Central Bureau of Investigation & GENERAL OFFICER COMMANDING v. CBI AND ANR. 609 Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 316: 2009 (7) SCR 759; Harpa/ Singh v. A State of Punjab (2007) 13 SCC 387: 2007 (12) SCR 830; Rambhai Nathabhai Gadhvi & Ors. v. State of Gujarat AIR 1997 SC 3475: 1997 (3) Suppl. SCR 356; State of H.P. v. M.P. Gupta (2004) 2 SCC 349: 2003 (6) Suppl. SCR 541; R.R. Chari v. The State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1951 SC 207: B 1991 (1) SCC 57; State of W B. & Anr. v. Mohd. Khalid & Ors. (1995) 1 sec 684: 1994 (6) Suppl. SCR 16; Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Dr. Manmohan Singh & Anr. AIR 2012 SC 1185: 2012 (3) SCC 64; Bhushan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 4 SCALE 191; State of Uttar Pradesh C v. Paras Nath Singh (2009) 6 SCC 372: 2009 (8) SCR 85 - relied on.

3.2. Section 7 of the Act 1990, puts an embargo on the complainant/investigating agency/person aggrieved to file a suit, prosecution etc. in respect of anything done D or purported to be done by a Army personnel, in good faith, in exercise of power conferred by the Act, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. Three expressions i.e. 'except', 'good faith' and 'purported' contained in the said provision require E clarification/elaboration. (i) Except : To leave or take out: exclude; omit; save Not including; unless. The word has also been construed to mean until. Exception - Act of excepting or excluding from a number designated or from a description; that which is excepted or separated F from others in a general rule of description; a person, thing, or case specified as distinct or not included; an act of excepting, omitting from mention or leaving out of consideration. (ii) Purport : Purport means to present, especially deliberately, the appearance of being; profess G or claim, often falsely. It means to convey, imply, signify or profess outwardly, often falsely. In other words it means to claim (to be a certain thing, etc.) by manner or appearance; intent to show; to mean; to intend. Purport also means 'alleged'. 'Purporting' - When power is given H 610 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 5 S.C.R. A to do something 'purporting' to have a certain effect, it will seem to prevent objections being urged against the validity of the act which might otherwise be raised. Thus when validity is given to anything 'purporting' to be done in pursuance of a power, a thing done under it may have B validity though done a1t a time when the power would not be really exercisable. 'Purporting to be done' - There must be something in the nature of the act that attaches it to his oftrcial charac:ter. Even if the act is not justified or authorised by law, he will still be purporting to act in c the execution of his duty if he acts on a mistaken view of it." So it means that something is deficient or amiss: everything is not as it is intended to be. [Paras 42, 43] (647-F-H; 648-A-H; 64!9-A-B]