A. SREENIVASA REDDY [Appellant(s)] Vs. RAKESH SHARMA & ANR. [Respondent(s)]

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2339 OF 2023

(2JB, B.R. GAVAI and J.B. PARDIWALA JJ., delivered by J.B. PARDIWALA, J.)

Facts: The present appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court for the State of Telangana dated 20.06.2022 in the Criminal Petition No. 6782 of 2019 filed by the appellant herein by which the High Court rejected the petition and thereby declined to quash the criminal proceedings instituted against the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B r/w 420, 468 and 471 respectively of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Issue:

• Whether the appellant, serving in his capacity as an Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Overseas Bank, is removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government so as to make Section 197 of the CrPC applicable?
• Is it permissible for the Special Court (CBI) to proceed against the appellant for the offences punishable under the IPC despite the fact that the sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act, 1988 to prosecute the appellant for the offences under the PC Act, 1988, is not on record as the same came to be declined?

Arguments on behalf of counsel for appellant: Mr. D. Ramakrishna Reddy

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently submitted that the sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC is mandatory to prosecute the appellant for the offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 respectively of the IPC. He would submit that as sanction to prosecute the appellant under the provisions of the PC Act, 1988 came to be declined, the appellant cannot now be prosecuted for the offences under IPC without valid sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC. The learned counsel further submitted that the appellant was also subjected to a departmental inquiry on the very same charges on which the appellant is now sought to be prosecuted in the Court of the Special Judge at Hyderabad. He pointed out that the appellant came to be exonerated of all the charges in the departmental inquiry as evident from the report of the inquiry officer. In such circumstances, it is prayed that continuation of the criminal prosecution for the offences under the IPC would be nothing but a gross abuse of the process of law and would lead to serious miscarriage of justice. He prayed that the impugned order passed by the High Court be set aside and the appellant may be discharged from the criminal prosecution.

Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondent:

• Sidharth Sangal for respondent no. 1

It was submitted that it is incorrect on the part of the appellant to state that he has been exonerated in the departmental proceedings. The appellant, was ultimately, given ‘Administrative Warning’ in respect of the charges against him which were levied for the appellant’s failure to discharge his duties with utmost devotion and diligence and acting in a manner unbecoming of a Bank Official and highly prejudicial to the Bank’s interest – the said charges were neither of Sections 420, 468, 471 or 120-B of the IPC. Thus, the appellant cannot rely on the outcome of the departmental proceedings to seek quashing of the criminal case against him. It was submitted that a bare reading of Section 197 of the CrPC clearly indicates that the Section 197 of the CrPC is only applicable to those ‘public servants’ who are removable with the sanction of the Government and to no other public servants. Relying on the decision of this Court in the case of S.K. Miglani v. State (NCT of Delhi), it was submitted that the Manager of a Nationalised Bank though a public servant yet not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government and hence cannot claim protection under Section 197 of the CrPC. In such circumstances referred to above, the learned counsel prayed that there being no merit in the present appeal, the same may be dismissed.

• Aishwarya Bhati for respondent no. 2

The learned Additional Solicitor General (ASG) appearing for the CBI submitted that although the sanctioning authority declined to accord sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act, 1988 to prosecute the appellant for the offences punishable under the provisions of the PC Act, 1988 yet, that by itself is not sufficient to discharge the appellant even from the offences punishable under the IPC. The learned ASG further submitted that the sanction required under Section 197 of the CrPC and the sanction required under the PC Act, 1988 stand on different footings whereas, sanction under the IPC in terms of the CrPC is required to be granted by the State or Central Government as the case may be under the PC Act, 1988, it can be granted also by the authorities specified in Section 19 thereof. According to Ms. Bhati, the entire submission canvassed on behalf of the appellant that the sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC was also prayed for and was declined, proceeds on an erroneous impression or footing. In such circumstances referred to above, the learned ASG prayed that there being no merit in this appeal, the same may be dismissed.

Held: The court dismissed the present appeal and held, Sub-section (1) of Section 197 of the CrPC shows that sanction for prosecution is required where any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duty. Article 311 of the Constitution lays down that no person, who is a member of a civil service of the Union or State or holds a civil post under the Union or State, shall be removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. It, therefore, follows that protection of sub-section (1) of Section 197 of CrPC is available only to such public servants whose appointing authority is the Central Government or the State Government and not to every public servant.

With respect to the first issue, it is held that, “the protection available under Section 197 of the CrPC is not available to the appellant herein since, the conditions in built under Section 197 of the CrPC are not fulfilled.”

With respect to the second issue, it is held that, “it can be said that there can be no thumb rule that in a prosecution before the court of Special Judge, the previous sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act, 1988 would invariably be the only prerequisite.”