Introduction:

In the case titled V.T. Jinu & Another v. State of Kerala & Others [Crl.Rev.Pet. No. 15 of 2018, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 271], the Kerala High Court, presided over by Justice A. Badharudeen, dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by a public servant, V.T. Jinu, who challenged an order passed by the Special Court framing charges against him under Sections 294(b), 465, 466, 474 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Arguments:

The petitioner argued that the charges ought to be quashed as they lacked the prior sanction required under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which is mandatory for prosecuting public servants. Represented by advocates Smt. K.G. Mary and Sri. Arun P. Antony, the petitioner, submitted that the acts attributed to him occurred in the course of his official duties, and hence, prosecution without prior sanction was untenable. The respondent State, represented by Public Prosecutor Jibu T. S., argued that the acts alleged—including caste-based verbal abuse intended to humiliate a Scheduled Caste woman on duty, and forgery of documents accusing her of misappropriation—were not part of the official duties of the petitioner and did not merit protection under Section 197 CrPC.

Judgement:

The High Court concurred with the prosecution, relying on the Supreme Court decisions in Indira Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Another and Sandeep G. v. State of Kerala, observing that the alleged misconduct did not constitute actions in discharge of official duty, and thus no prior sanction was necessary. The court held that when a public servant is accused of abusing a person using casteist slurs and forging documents to wrongly implicate them in financial misconduct, such acts are personal and malicious and not shielded by official capacity. The court concluded that there existed a prima facie case for trial and that the order framing charges did not warrant interference. As a result, the revision petition was dismissed, affirming that the accused must face trial for the alleged offences.