UDAY UMESH LALIT, INDU MALHOTRA, KRISHNA MURARI
Station House Officer, CBI/ACB/Bangalore – Appellant
Versus
B. A. Srinivasan – Respondent
The legal document discusses the scope of protection under certain legal provisions for public servants, especially concerning acts performed during or related to their official duties. The key points are as follows:
Protection under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. is available to public servants when an offence is committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their official duty. However, this protection is limited to the period during which they are in service; it does not extend after retirement (!) .
The protection available to a public servant while in service should also be applicable after retirement, but only if the acts in question are directly connected to their official duties. If the acts are performed using the office as a mere cloak for unlawful gains, such acts are not protected under Section 197 (!) (!) .
The determination of whether an act was performed in the discharge of official duties or was merely using the office as a cover can only be crystallized after evidence is led during trial. The issue of sanction for prosecution, therefore, can be raised at any stage of the proceedings, including after evidence has been examined (!) (!) (!) .
The requirement of prior sanction for prosecution, especially under provisions related to corruption, is imperative when the offences are committed in the course of official duty. Once a public servant has retired, the necessity of such sanction diminishes or becomes irrelevant, particularly if the acts are not directly connected to official duties (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Acts performed using the office as a cloak for unlawful or personal gains are not protected, and the protection under the law is only applicable when acts are directly connected to official functions. The protection is also not available if the acts are committed for personal benefit under the guise of official duties (!) (!) .
The issue of whether an offence was committed in the discharge of official duties can be determined only after examining evidence, and the question of sanction can be revisited at any stage of the proceedings. The law emphasizes that the connection between the act and official duties must be reasonable and established during trial (!) .
When a public servant has ceased to be in service at the time of cognizance or trial, the requirement for prior sanction is generally not applicable, and the law supports the view that protection is limited to the period of active service (!) (!) .
In summary, the protection for public servants under specific legal provisions is strictly linked to acts performed during their official duties and while in service. Acts performed after retirement or using office as a cover for unlawful gains do not enjoy such protection, and the issue of sanction can be considered at different stages, depending on the nature of the act and its connection to official duties.
JUDGMENT
Uday Umesh Lalit, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This Appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 08.08.2018 passed by the High Court [The High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore] allowing Criminal Revision Petition No.834 of 2015 preferred by the Respondent No.1; and thereby discharging the Respondent No.1 of the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’, for short) and Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘the Act’, for short).
3. The Respondent No. 1 retired on 31.10.2012 as Assistant General Manager, Vijaya Bank. On 28.10.2013, FIR being RC 12(A)/2013 was registered pursuant to complaint given by the General Manager, Vijaya Bank, Head Office, Bangalore against the Respondent No.1 in respect of the offences mentioned hereinabove. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed on 31.10.2014 against the Respondent No.1 and other accused in respect of said offences. It was alleged inter alia :-
“3. That Shri B.A. Srinivasan (A-1) while working as Assistant General Manager (AGM) and Branch Head, Vijaya Bank, Mayo Hall Branch, Bangalore during the period from 11.01
Shambhoo Nath Misra v. State of U.P.
Kalicharan Mahapatra vs. State of Orissa
P.K. Pradhan vs. State of Sikkim represented by the Central Bureau of Investigation
S.A. Venkataraman vs. The State
C.R. Bansi v. State of Maharashtra
Anil Kumar Bose vs. State of Bihar
R.Balakrishna Pillai vs. State of Kerala
K. Veeraswami v. Union of India
Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab
Rishipal Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another
State of Punjab vs. Labh Singh
Inspector of Police and another vs. Battenapatla Venkata Ratnam and another
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.