Subsequent Section 197(3) CrPC notifications cannot retrospectively invalidate cognizance orders validly taken prior to their issuance.

The complainant, wife of the deceased, alleged that the appellants (a police Officer-in-Charge and a Constable) murdered her husband during State Assembly elections at the instance of an Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP)

The Magistrate took cognizance in 2001 and summoned the accused

The ACP successfully moved the Supreme Court in 2006, which quashed the proceedings against him for want of sanction under Section 197(1) of the Cr.P.C., as he was a public servant removable only by the Government

Following this, the Magistrate extended the same benefit to the appellants and halted proceedings

The High Court reversed this order, holding that the previous Supreme Court decision applied only to the ACP

The appellants challenged this before the Supreme Court, citing a 2010 West Bengal Government notification that extended Section 197 protection to all subordinate police ranks

1. Whether the appellants, as co-accused holding subordinate ranks, are entitled to the benefit of the Supreme Court’s decision in Sankaran Moitra v. Sadhana Das regarding the requirement of prior sanction?

2. Whether the benefit of the State Government notification dated 19.11.2010, issued under Section 197(3) of the Cr.P.C., would be available to the appellants in a case where cognizance was taken prior to the notification?

The court primarily applied Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., which bars courts from taking cognizance of offences alleged against certain public servants acting in official duty without government sanction

It relied on Nagraj v. State of Mysore and Fakhruzamma v. State of Jharkhand to establish that Section 197(1) protection is limited to public servants removable only by or with the sanction of the Government

The court further applied the principle from Baijnath v. State of M.P., which posits that the legal bar on cognizance must be assessed at the time the court exercises its power to take cognizance; a valid cognizance order cannot be nullified by a subsequent notification unless expressly provided

The court reasoned that the appellants, being subordinate rank officers at the time of cognizance, were removable by authorities other than the State Government (e.g., the Inspector General of Police), thus excluding them from the protection of Section 197(1) enjoyed by their co-accused ACP

Regarding the 2010 notification, the court emphasized that the bar under Section 197 operates specifically at the stage of "taking cognizance"

Since the Magistrate had already validly taken cognizance in 2001—a period when no such protection existed for subordinate ranks—the subsequent 2010 notification could not retroactively invalidate the proceedings

The court clarified that a post-cognizance change in the law regarding sanction does not affect a trial where the initial cognizance was legally sound

The Court answered the first issue by clarifying that the Sankaran Moitra precedent was rank-specific and did not apply to subordinate officers removable by non-governmental authorities

On the second issue, it held that the 2010 notification is prospective and does not affect cases where cognizance was validly taken before its issuance

The Court discharged any interim orders and directed the trial to proceed while refraining from commenting on the merits of the murder allegations