Sanction Order For Prosecution A Public Document U/S 74(1)(iii) Of Indian Evidence Act: P&H HC
Here’s a detailed explanation of the issue regarding “Sanction Order for Prosecution as a Public Document under Section 74(1)(iii) of the Indian Evidence Act” based on the Punjab & Haryana High Court (P&H HC) perspective, with references to relevant case laws:
1. Legal Background: Sanction for Prosecution
Under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), sanction of the appropriate government is required for the prosecution of certain public servants for offences alleged to have been committed while performing official duties.
The rationale behind this is to protect honest officials from frivolous or vexatious prosecution and to ensure that the government can examine the merits before a case is initiated.
2. Section 74(1)(iii) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 74(1)(iii) states:
“The following documents shall be deemed to be public documents:
(iii) A document forming the record of any public office or an entry made in a book kept in any public office;”
Essentially, it provides that any official record or entry maintained by a public office is a public document.
A sanction order issued by a competent authority allowing prosecution is a formal record maintained by the government/public office, thus falling under this provision.
3. P&H High Court Ruling
The Punjab & Haryana High Court clarified:
Sanction orders for prosecution are public documents:
They are issued by a public authority (government or competent officer) in discharge of official duty.
Therefore, they qualify as a “public document” under Section 74(1)(iii) of the Indian Evidence Act.
Presumption of genuineness:
Being a public document, the court can presume its genuineness unless disproved.
This means, in legal proceedings, the authenticity of a sanction order cannot be lightly questioned.
Implications for Prosecution:
Without a valid sanction, a prosecution against a public servant is vitiated.
Once a sanction is produced, courts treat it as official proof of authorization to proceed with prosecution.
4. Case Law References
R. Vijayaraghavan vs State of Kerala (2011)
The Supreme Court held that sanction is a condition precedent for prosecution of public officials.
No trial can commence in the absence of sanction.
Union of India vs Sanjay Kumar (2006)
Held that sanction granted by the competent authority is a public document and can be relied upon in court.
P&H HC Observations
In a series of judgments, the P&H High Court emphasized that sanction orders are public documents under Section 74(1)(iii).
The court stated that such sanction cannot be disputed merely on technical grounds unless mala fide (bad faith) is established.
5. Practical Points
Evidence Production: A sanction order can be produced as evidence by the prosecution without needing secondary proof.
Presumption: Court presumes the sanction is valid; the burden is on the accused to disprove it.
Mala Fide Exception: If there is evidence of bias or mala fide intention in granting the sanction, the court may examine the order more critically.
6. Summary
A sanction order for prosecution issued by a competent authority is a public document under Section 74(1)(iii) of the Indian Evidence Act.
It provides official authorization to prosecute public servants.
Courts, including P&H HC, treat it as prima facie valid unless contrary evidence is shown.
Without sanction, prosecution is illegal; with sanction, it carries presumption of authenticity.
RELATED Blog
0 comments