Holding

The Court held that the appellants, being subordinate police officers not removable only with government sanction, are not protected by Section 197(1), and the 2010 notification does not apply because cognizance was taken before its issuance, so the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

The complainant, wife of a deceased, filed a criminal complaint against three police officials—Assistant Commissioner Sankaran Moitra and two subordinate officers, S.M. Kundu and Sudhir Sikdar—alleging that the latter two murdered her husband on the direction of Moitra. The trial court took cognizance and the accused were charged under Sections 302, 201, 109 and 120‑B of the IPC. Moitra successfully obtained a quash of the proceedings on the ground that prosecution required prior sanction under Section 197(1) of the CrPC, as he was a public servant removable only with government sanction; the trial court later extended this benefit to the subordinate officers. The complainant challenged this extension, and the Supreme Court was asked to decide (1) whether the co‑accused subordinate officers could enjoy the protection granted to Moitra, and (2) whether the 19‑Nov‑2010 notification extending Section 197(2) to subordinate police officers applied to them. The Court held that the subordinate officers were not in the category of officials removable only with government sanction, so Section 197(1) protection did not apply, and because cognizance was taken in 2001—well before the 2010 notification—the bar under Section 197(2) could not be invoked. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the proceedings against the appellants may continue.

Issues considered

Whether co‑accused subordinate police officers are entitled to the benefit of the Supreme Court's decision in Sankaran Moitra's case under Section 197(1) of the CrPC.
Whether the notification dated 19‑Nov‑2010, extending the protection of Section 197(2) to subordinate police officers, is applicable to the appellants.

Legislation cited

Calcutta Police Act, 1866
Calcutta Sub‑Urban Police Act, 1866
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 197(1), s. 197(2), s. 197(3)
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 109, s. 120-B, s. 201, s. 302
Police Act, 1861

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Whether the appellants, who are co-accused, are entitled to the benefit of this Court’s decision in the matter of co-accused-‘SM’; whether the benefit of notification dated 19.11.2010 would be available to the appellants. Headnotes† Code of under, when not available – First respondent-complainant (wife of the deceased) filed complaint against three police officials viz. co-accused-‘SM’, an Assistant Commissioner of Police; the first-appellant and the second-appellant, a Police Constable alleging that at the

Subjects

Section 197 (1) CrPCSection 197 (2) CrPCProtection under Section 197 not availableBenefit of Section 197 not availableProceedings quashed for want of sanctionPublic servant not removable without government sanctionSubordinate police officersNotification 19‑Nov‑2010Cognizance of offenceCo‑accusedCriminal procedure

Judgment

[2026] 4 S.C.R. 273 : 2026 INSC 304

Samarendra Nath Kundu & Anr.
v.
Sadhana Das & Anr.
(Criminal Appeal No. 654 of 2013)
1 April 2026
[J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Whether the appellants, who are co-accused, are entitled to the
benefit of this Court’s decision in the matter of co-accused-‘SM’;
whether the benefit of notification dated 19.11.2010 would be
available to the appellants.

Headnotes†
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.197(1) – Protection under,
when not available – First respondent-complainant (wife of the
deceased) filed complaint against three police officials viz.
co-accused-‘SM’, an Assistant Commissioner of Police; the
first-appellant and the second-appellant, a Police Constable
alleging that at the instance of ‘SM’, the appellants murdered
her husband – Magistrate took cognizance on the complaint,
accused persons summoned – SM’s petition for quashing the
proceedings on the aforesaid complaint on the ground that no
cognizance could have been taken without a proper sanction
as contemplated in s.197, CrPC was dismissed – However,
the appeal filed by ‘SM’ thereagainst was allowed by Supreme
Court – Magistrate extended the benefit of this Court’s order
to the appellants as well – First respondent filed criminal
revision, allowed on the ground that this Court’s order in SM’s
case was qua him alone, and it did not apply to other accused
against whom no sanction was required – Correctness:
Held: This Court quashed the proceedings against ‘SM’ not on the
ground that no offence was committed by him or that no offence at
all was committed, but for want of sanction – The proceedings were
quashed as he was a public servant (i.e., Assistant Commissioner

* Author
274 [2026] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

of Police) not removable from his office save by or with the sanction
of the Government and the offence alleged was committed by him
while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official
duty – In those circumstances, this Court took the view that he was
entitled to the protection of sub-section (1) of s.197 and, therefore,
in absence of sanction, the complaint and the proceedings were
liable to be quashed – The benefit of decision in SM’s case would
be available to the appellants only if they were not removable from
office save by or with the sanction of the Government – Previous
sanction is required for prosecuting only such public servants who
could be removed by sanction of the Government – Undisputedly,
when cognizance of the alleged offence was taken, the appellants
were subordinate rank officers not falling in the category of those
officers who could be removed from service only with the sanction
of the Government thus, there was no requirement of sanction as
envisaged u/s.197 (1) – Hence, the benefit of the decision in ‘SM’ is
not available to the appellants – Protection of sub-section (1) was
not available to the appellants – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302/201/109
r/w s.120-B. [Paras 7, 9-11]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.197(2) – Notifications
dtd. 19.11.2010 issued in exercise of the power conferred
upon the State Government by sub-section (3) of s.197 inter
alia stating that the provisions of sub-section (2) of s.197 of
the Code shall apply to all sub-ordinate ranks of Police force
constituted under the Calcutta Police Act, 1866 and Calcutta
Sub-Urban Police Act, 1866; and to subordinate ranks in
police force, enrolled or appointed under the Police Act,
1861 – Appellants sought protection under sub-section (2)
on the basis of the notification dtd. 19.11.2010:
Held: A subsequent bar on the power of the court to take
cognizance of an offence is of no consequence to those
proceedings where cognizance was taken when there was no
such bar – The notification(s) would not affect those proceedings
where cognizance was not barred when taken – Moreover, there
is nothing in the notification(s) or CrPC which may nullify a valid
cognizance order – Cognizance was taken in the year 2001,
much before the notification – Therefore, the benefit of s.197 is
not available to the appellants. [Para 14]
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 275

Samarendra Nath Kundu & Anr. v. Sadhana Das & Anr.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.197 (1), (2) – Bar under:
Held: The bar of sub-sections (1) and (2) of s.197 is on Court’s
power to take cognizance of an offence allegedly committed by a
public servant or member of a Force while acting or purporting to
act in the discharge of official duty save with the previous sanction
of the Government – If the bar applies, the Court cannot take
cognizance of the offence and therefore, it cannot proceed to try
the same – Thus, Court cannot try an offence of which it cannot
take cognizance. [Para 14]

Case Law Cited
Sankaran Moitra v. Sadhna Das & Another [2006] 3 SCR 305 :
(2006) 4 SCC 584 – held inapplicable.
Fakhruzamma v. State of Jharkhand [2013] 12 SCR 824 : (2013)
15 SCC 552 – relied on.
Nagraj v. State of Mysore, [1964] 3 SCR 671 : AIR 1964 SC 269 :
1963 SCC OnLine SC 249; Baijnath v. State of M.P. [1966] 1 SCR
210 : AIR 1966 SC 220 : 1965 SCC OnLine SC 294 – referred to.

List of Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Calcutta Police Act, 1866; Calcutta
Sub-Urban Police Act, 1866; Police Act, 1861; Penal Code, 1860.

List of Keywords
Section 197 (1), CrPC; Section 197 (2), CrPC; Protection of
Section 197 (1), CrPC not available; Benefit of Section 197,
CrPC not available; Proceedings quashed for want of sanction;
Proceedings quashed against public servant; Police Constable;
Assistant Commissioner of Police; Public servant not removable
from office save by or with the sanction of the Government;
Not removable from office save by or with the sanction of the
Government; Offence alleged committed while acting or purporting
to act in the discharge of official duty; Subordinate rank officers;
Subordinate rank officers not falling in the category of officers
removeable from service only with the sanction of the Government;
No requirement of sanction as envisaged under Section 197 (1)
of CrPC; Protection of sub-section (1) of Section 197, CrPC not
available; Co-accused not entitled to benefit of Court’s decision
in the matter of co-accused; Notifications issued in exercise of
276 [2026] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

the power conferred upon State Government by sub-section (3)
of Section 197, CrPC; Bar of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section
197, CrPC; Bar of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 197, CrPC;
Cognizance of an offence allegedly committed by a public servant
or member of a Force acting in discharge of official duty; Save
with the previous sanction of the Government; Section 197 (3),
CrPC; Previous sanction of the Government.

Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
654 Of 2013
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.05.2012 of the High Court
at Calcutta in CRRA No. 874 of 2008.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Raj Kamal, Ms. Pallavi Malhotra, Ms. Muskan Sidana, Aseem
Atwal, Anurag Chandra, Ms. Nupur Kaushik.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Mangaljit Mukherjee, Ranjan Mukherjee, Ms. Astha Sharma,
Sanjeev Kaushik, Simranjeet Singh Rekhi, Ms. Muskan Surana.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Manoj Misra, J.

1. This appeal impugns the judgment and order of the High Court at
Calcutta1 dated 02.05.2012 in Criminal Revision No. 874 of 2008, by
which the revision application of the first-respondent Smt. Sadhna Das
(hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against the order of Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, South 24-Parganas2 dated 28.12.2007 in
Case No. C-1107 of 2001 was allowed and the learned Magistrate
was directed to proceed against the accused (the appellants herein).

1 The High Court
2 The learned Magistrate
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 277

Samarendra Nath Kundu & Anr. v. Sadhana Das & Anr.

FACTS
2. The relevant facts are as under:
(i) The complainant i.e., the wife of the deceased made a complaint
against three police officials namely, Sankaran Moitra (an
Assistant Commissioner of Police), S.M. Kundu (the first-
appellant), Officer-in-Charge of Phoolbagan Police Station,
Calcutta and Sudhir Sikdar alias Sudhangshu Kumar Sikdar
(the second-appellant), a Police Constable attached to the
Phoolbagan Police Station, Calcutta. In the complaint it was,
inter alia, alleged that at the instance of Sankaran Moitra, the
other two accused, namely, the appellants herein, murdered
complainant’s husband.
(ii) The learned Magistrate took cognizance on the complaint and,
after following complaint case procedure as contemplated
under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19733, summoned the
accused under Sections 302/201/109 read with Section 120-B
of the Indian Penal Code, 18604.
(iii) Sankaran Moitra filed a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
for quashing the proceedings on the aforesaid complaint, inter
alia, on the ground that no cognizance could have been taken
without a proper sanction as contemplated in Section 197 of
Cr.P.C.
(iv) The High Court vide order dated 11.07.2003 dismissed the
aforesaid petition holding that beating a person to death cannot
be regarded as an act in the discharge of official duties.
(v) Aggrieved by High Court’s order, Sankaran Moitra filed Criminal
Appeal No. 330 of 2006 before this Court, which was allowed
vide order dated 24.03.20065. While allowing the appeal, this
Court noticed/ observed that the incident occurred on the day
of elections to the State Assembly; the accused applicant was
in uniform; the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State

3 Cr.P.C.
4 IPC
5 Reported as Sankaran Moitra v. Sadhna Das & Another, (2006) 4 SCC 584
278 [2026] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

revealed that on the election day, information was received at
the police station regarding violent clashes between supporters
of two political parties upon which the applicant had arrived at
the spot in his official vehicle and, thereafter, a lathi charge
took place; and husband of the complainant may have received
injuries in that lathi charge, resulting in his death. After noticing/
observing as above, this Court held that as maintenance of
law and order and prevention of breach of public order on the
polling day was part of the officers’ duty, the act was done in
the performance of duty or in purported performance of duty,
therefore protection of Section 197(1) would be available. The
operative portion of the order reads thus:
“25. … We are therefore satisfied that the High Court
was in error in holding that sanction under Section
197(1) was not needed in this case. We hold that
such sanction was necessary and for want of sanction
the prosecution must be quashed at this stage. It is
not for us now to answer the submission of learned
counsel for the complainant that this is an eminently
fit case for grant of such sanction.
26. We thus allow this appeal and set aside the order
of the High Court quash the complaint only on the
ground of want of sanction under Section 197(1) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure. The observations
herein, however, shall not prejudice the rights of the
complainant in any prosecution after the requirements
of Section 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
are complied with.”
(vi) The learned Magistrate upon receiving the aforesaid order of
this Court, vide order dated 28.12.2007, extended the benefit
of this Court’s order to the appellants as well.
(vii) Aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate dated
28.12.2007, the complainant ( i.e., the first-respondent) filed a
criminal revision before the High Court.
(viii) By the impugned order, the criminal revision was allowed, inter
alia, on the ground that this Court’s order in Sankaran Moitra
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 279

Samarendra Nath Kundu & Anr. v. Sadhana Das & Anr.

was qua Sankaran Moitra alone, and it did not apply to other
accused against whom no sanction was required.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS
4. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, inter alia,
is that the Government of West Bengal6, vide notification dated
19.11.2010, under sub-section (3) of Section 197 of Cr.P.C., has
extended the benefit of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section
197 to all subordinate rank police officers enrolled or appointed
under the Police Act, 1861 charged with the maintenance of public
order. As a result, vide letter dated 06.12.2010, the Government
sought opinion from the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta7 qua grant
of sanction to prosecute the appellants. In response thereof, the
Commissioner wrote letter dated 15.12.2010 stating that it is not a fit
case for according sanction as police officer(s) had discharged their
duties in the capacity of public servant on the day of elections to the
State Legislative Assembly. Relying on the said letter, on behalf of
the appellants, it was contended that the incident occurred while the
appellants were discharging their duties pursuant to direction of their
superiors and as, by notification dated 19.11.2010, requirement of
sanction is essential even for police officers in the subordinate ranks,
there exists no justification to prosecute the appellants in absence of
the sanction. Therefore, the appeal be allowed, the order of the High
Court be set aside and the order of the learned Magistrate be restored.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT
5. Per contra, on behalf of the complainant (i.e., the first-respondent)
it was submitted that the deceased had received multiple injuries
as could be evinced from paragraphs 71, 72 and 738 of this Court’s

6 The Government
7 The Commissioner
8 71. “Dr. Rabindra Basu, who performed post-mortem examination, state that he found the following
injuries on the person of Topi Das:
1. One abrasion with a reddish crust 1.4 inches x .3 inch more or less transversely placed
across left side of forehead lower part being placed 1 inch above lateral 1/3rd left eye brow.
2. One abrasion .4 inch x .3 inch with reddish crust placed 1 inch above medial end of left
eyebrow and ½ inch lateral to midline.
3. One linear abrasion .6 inch x .1 inch with reddish crust over lateral aspect of uppermost part
280 [2026] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

judgment in Sankaran Moitra (supra) which clearly indicate that it
was a case of brutal murder. Moreover, the judgment in Sankaran
Moitra (supra) would not apply to the appellants as on the date
of cognizance, the appellants were not protected by Section 197
of Cr.P.C. Further, the notification dated 19.11.2010 applies only to
those cases where cognizance is taken after 19.11.2010. Thus, the
appeal is liable to be dismissed.

DISCUSSION
6. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and perusal of the
materials available on record, in our view, following issues fall for
our consideration:
(1) Whether the appellants, who are co-accused, are entitled to
the benefit of this Court’s decision in the matter of co-accused
Sankaran` Moitra?
(2) Whether the benefit of notification dated 19.11.2010 would be
available to the appellants?

of left forearm.
4. One abrasion = x .1 inch with reddish crust over postern lateral aspect of upper 1/3rd of left
forearm.
5. One abrasion ½ x .1 inch over dorsum of left hand.
6. One linear abrasion .4 inch x .1 inch with reddish rust over dorsal aspect of web between
index and middle finger.”
72. On internal examination, he noticed the following injuries:
1. One haematoma in the scalp tissue 3 ½ inches x 2 inches over right temporal region.
2. One haematoma in the scalp tissue over vault of the skull 4 inches x .4 inch over parieto-
occipital region of scalp.
3. One haematoma in the scalp tissue over vault of the skull 4 inches x 3 inches involving left
parieto topper (sic) region.
4. One haematoma 2 ½ inches x 1 ½ inches over left frontal region (forehead).
5. Extradural Haemorrhage over vault of the brain involving posterior aspects of both parietal
lobes.
6. Thin layscror (sic) sub-aural haemorrhage all over both the cerebral hemisphere inching
under surfaced.
73. He then stated:
“All the internal organs were congested. Larynx and trachea were found congested and the lumen
was filled up with shaving lathery froth with and sand seen even below bifunction of trachea. Lungs
were voluminous, doughy filled and on section and squeezing copious amount of frothy blood
mixed fluid came out. Heart showed Grade-II atteroma (sic) at the root of aorta.
On the basis of my findings I have the following opinion: “Death was due to the effects of head
injuries associated with drowning ante-mortem and homicidal in nature.
The injuries which I found are consistent with a trauma caused by blunt weapon such as Lathi.”
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 281

Samarendra Nath Kundu & Anr. v. Sadhana Das & Anr.

ISSUE No. 1:
7. In so far as the first issue is concerned, it is important to note that
this Court had quashed the proceedings against Sankaran Moitra
not on the ground that no offence has been committed by him
or that no offence at all was committed, but for want of sanction.
The proceedings were quashed as he was a public servant (i.e.,
Assistant Commissioner of Police) not removable from his office
save by or with the sanction of the Government and the offence
alleged was committed by him while acting or purporting to act in
the discharge of his official duty. In those circumstances, this Court
took the view that he was entitled to the protection of sub-section
(1) of Section 197 and, therefore, in absence of sanction, the
complaint and the proceedings were liable to be quashed. What is
important to note is that in the case of Sankaran Moitra there was
no dispute that he was not removable from office save by or with
the sanction of the Government. What is also important is that it
was left open to proceed against Sankaran Moitra after obtaining
the sanction. In such circumstances, the benefit of decision in
Sankaran Moitra (supra) would be available to the appellants only
if they were not removable from office save by or with the sanction
of the Government.
8. ‘Government’ is not defined in Cr.P.C. therefore, by virtue of
Section 2 (y) of Cr.P.C., we would have to refer to the definition
of ‘Government’ as provided in IPC. Section 17 of IPC defines
‘Government’ as follows:
“The word Government denotes the Central Government
or the Government of a State.”
9. In Nagraj v. State of Mysore9, this Court held that if the Inspector
General of Police can dismiss a Sub-Inspector, no sanction of the
State Government would be necessary for such an officer even if
he had committed the alleged offence while acting or purporting
to act in the discharge of his official duty. Following the above
decision, in Fakhruzamma v. State of Jharkhand10 it was held

9 [1964] 3 SCR 671 : AIR 1964 SC 269 : 1963 SCC OnLine SC 249
10 (2013) 15 SCC 552, paragraph 6
282 [2026] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

that previous sanction is required for prosecuting only such public
servants who could be removed by sanction of the Government.
10. As there is no dispute that when cognizance of the alleged offence
was taken, the appellants were subordinate rank officers not falling
in the category of those officers who could be removed from service
only with the sanction of the Government, in our view, there was
no requirement of sanction as envisaged under Section 197 (1)
of Cr.P.C. Hence, the benefit of the decision in Sankaran Moitra
(supra) is not available to the appellants. Issue No.(1) is answered
accordingly.

ISSUE No. (2)
11. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 197 of Cr.P.C. provides protection
to different categories of persons. We have already held above that
protection of sub-section (1) was not available to the appellants.
Now, we shall consider whether protection of sub-section (2) of
Section 197 is available. According to sub-section (2), no court shall
take cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed
by any member of the Armed Forces of the Union while acting or
purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, except with the
previous sanction of the Central Government. Sub-section (3) of
Section 197 of Cr.P.C. empowers the State Government to direct,
by notification, that the protection envisaged under sub-section (2)
shall apply to such class or category of members of the Forces
charged with the maintenance of public order as may be specified
therein. In light of the provisions of sub-section (3), even though
the appellants do not fall in the category of officers not removable
from service save by or with the sanction of the Government, they
seek protection under sub-section (2) on the basis of the notification
dated 19.11.2010 issued by the Government under sub-section (3)
of Section 197 of Cr.P.C.
12. In fact, twin notifications dated 19.11.2010 have been placed
on record. The first relates to subordinate ranks in police force
constituted under the Calcutta Police Act, 1866 and Calcutta Sub-
Urban Police Act, 1866 whereas the second relates to subordinate
ranks in police force, enrolled or appointed under the Police Act,
1861. These twin notifications are reproduced below:
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 283

Samarendra Nath Kundu & Anr. v. Sadhana Das & Anr.

Part I
Order by the Governor of West Bengal
2149
GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL
Home (Political) Department
Secret Section
NOTIFICATION
No. 2103-P.S.
Dated Kolkata, the 19th November, 2010
In exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (3) of
Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of
1974) (hereinafter referred to as the Code), the Governor is
pleased hereby to direct that the provisions of sub-section
(2) of Section 197 of the Code shall apply to all sub-ordinate
ranks of Police force, appointed constituted and administered
under the Calcutta Police Act, 1866 (Ben. Act IV of 1866)
and Calcutta Suburban Police Act, 1866 (Ben. Act. II of
1866) charged with the maintenance of public order.
By order of the Governor,
Sd/- A.G. GHOSH
OSD & Ex-officio
Spl. Secy. to the Govt. of West Bengal
No. 2103/1(1)-P.S.
Copy forwarded to the Commissioner of Police, Kolkata
for information and necessary action.
Sd/-
OSD & Ex-officio
Jt. Secy. to the Govt. of West Bengal
2150
GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL
Home (Political) Department
Secret Section
NOTIFICATION
No. 2104-P.S.
Dated Kolkata, the 19th November, 2010
284 [2026] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

In exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (3) of
Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of
1974) (hereinafter referred to as the Code), the Governor
is pleased hereby to direct that the provisions of sub-
section (2) of Section 197 of the Code shall apply to all
sub-ordinate ranks of Police force, enrolled or appointed
under the Police Act, 1861 (5 of 1861) charged with the
maintenance of public order.
By order of the Governor,
Sd/- A.G. GHOSH
OSD & Ex-officio
Spl. Secy. to the Govt. of West Bengal
13. Apparently the aforesaid notifications were issued in exercise of
the power conferred upon the State Government by sub-section (3)
of Section 197. As a result, we will have to examine whether the
appellants’ case would come under the protective umbrella of sub-
section (2) of Section 197 in view of the notification issued under
sub-section (3). Before we dwell on the applicability of the provisions
of sub-section (2), we must understand the stage at which the bar
envisaged under Section 197 applies.
14. The bar of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 197 is on Court’s power
to take cognizance of an offence allegedly committed by a public
servant or member of a Force while acting or purporting to act in
the discharge of official duty save with the previous sanction of the
Government. If the bar applies, the Court cannot take cognizance
of the offence and therefore, it cannot proceed to try the same. In
other words, the court cannot try an offence of which it cannot take
cognizance. In Baijnath v. State of M.P.11 it was held that a post-
cognizance sanction will not save the proceedings. Reason is simple,
when cognizance was taken the bar applied. Conversely, if there is
no bar on the date when cognizance of the offence is taken, the court
can proceed to try the offence. This is so, because the bar applies
at the stage of cognizance. Therefore, in our view, a subsequent
bar on the power of the court to take cognizance of an offence is of

11 [1966] 1 SCR 210 : AIR 1966 SC 220 : 1965 SCC OnLine SC 294
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 285

Samarendra Nath Kundu & Anr. v. Sadhana Das & Anr.

no consequence to those proceedings where cognizance was taken
when there was no such bar. As a sequitur, the notification(s) would
not affect those proceedings where cognizance was not barred when
taken. Besides, there is nothing in the notification(s) or Cr.P.C. which
may nullify a valid cognizance order.
15. In the instant case, cognizance was taken in the year 2001, that is,
much before the notification. Therefore, in our considered view, the
benefit of Section 197 is not available to the appellants. As a result,
the appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. The interim
order, if any, stands discharged. Pending application(s), if any, shall
also stand disposed of.
16. We, however, clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the allegations made against the appellants.

Result of the case: Appeal dismissed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey