Samarendra Nath Kundu & Anr v Sadhana Das & Anr, 2026

The case originated from a criminal complaint filed in 2001 alleging custodial killing of the complainant’s husband by police officials.

At the time of the alleged offence (year 2000), subordinate police officers (such as station-level officers) did not enjoy protection under Section 197 CrPC.

The Magistrate took cognizance of the offence without requiring prior sanction, as no such legal bar existed at that time.

Nearly a decade later, on November 19, 2010, the State of West Bengal issued a notification under Section 197(3) CrPC, extending sanction protection to subordinate police personnel.

The accused officers relied on this subsequent notification to argue that the prosecution could not continue without prior sanction, and sought quashing of proceedings.

The Calcutta High Court rejected this contention and allowed the prosecution to proceed.

Aggrieved, the accused officers approached the Supreme Court, challenging the continuation of criminal proceedings.

The Court held that a subsequent extension of sanction protection cannot invalidate proceedings that were validly initiated earlier.

It emphasized that the relevant date for applicability of Section 197 CrPC is the date of taking cognizance, not subsequent legal changes.

The Court observed that once cognizance is lawfully taken, later developments cannot nullify or defeat the proceedings.

It relied on Fakhruzamma v State of Jharkhand, which clarified that sanction is required only for public servants removable by the Government.

The Court held that the appellant, being a subordinate police officer, was not entitled to protection at the relevant time.

The 2010 notification extending protection was held to be prospective in nature and not applicable to past proceedings.

The Court affirmed the Calcutta High Court’s decision.

It reiterated that subsequent legal bars cannot undo proceedings that were valid at inception.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

The judgment reinforces the principle of prospective application of criminal procedural protections.

It upholds legal certainty, ensuring that validly initiated proceedings are not disturbed by later changes in law.

The Court clearly distinguishes between substantive rights and procedural protections, treating sanction as procedural.

By focusing on the date of cognizance, the Court provides a clear and workable test for future cases.

The reliance on judicial precedent strengthens doctrinal consistency.

The ruling prevents misuse of retrospective defenses by accused persons seeking to delay or avoid trial.

It balances protection of public servants with the need for accountability, especially in serious allegations like custodial death.

The judgment contributes significantly to criminal jurisprudence by clarifying the temporal scope of Section 197 CrPC.