Criminal Procedure Code

State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Buddhikota Subbarao

(1993) 2 SCC 567

Facts

Dr. Subbarao, a retired Naval Captain, was prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act and Atomic Energy Act.
The alleged documents had come into his possession during his naval and scientific assignments.
He was charged with improperly possessing, retaining or communicating sensitive information.
The Sessions Court and Bombay High Court examined whether prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC was necessary.
The State argued that:
the alleged acts were criminal;
they could never form part of official duty;
and retirement removed the need for sanction.
Subbarao argued that the prosecution allegations themselves linked acquisition and possession of the documents to his official service.

Section 197 prohibits cognizance of specified offences alleged against protected public servants without prior government sanction where the act was done:
while acting; or
purporting to act in discharge of official duty.
Protection may continue after retirement if the alleged act occurred during service.
The test is not whether the act was lawful.
The question is whether there is a reasonable connection between:
the act complained of; and
official functions.
If official position merely supplied an opportunity unrelated to duty, sanction may not be required.
If the act is inseparably connected with material obtained or functions performed through official duty, sanction may be necessary.
The requirement is a condition precedent to cognizance.

The prosecution’s own charges stated that Subbarao obtained access to the documents while:
serving in the Navy;
working with BARC;
and performing specialised official assignments.
Some alleged later acts, such as retention or proposed communication, were unlawful according to the prosecution.
But unlawfulness did not answer the sanction question.
Section 197 exists precisely because an allegation may characterise an official-connected act as criminal.
The court had to ask whether the act could be separated completely from the official role.
Here:
access;
acquisition;
scientific preparation;
and possession arose from the service relationship.
Retirement did not erase that connection.
The protection is attached to the official act, not merely to current employment status.
The State could still prosecute if it obtained valid sanction from the competent authority.
What it could not do was ask the criminal court to take cognizance first and regularise the defect later.
The Supreme Court did not decide guilt or the secrecy classification of every document.
It confined itself to the procedural bar.

The Supreme Court upheld the discharge.
It held that sanction under Section 197 was required because the alleged acts were reasonably connected with duties performed during public service.
Without sanction, cognizance and continuation of the prosecution were legally vitiated.
The State’s appeal was dismissed. ( )