The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of sanction for prosecuting public servants under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. for offences under the Indian Penal Code, emphasizing the need for a reasonable connection between the alleged offence and the discharge of official duty.

JUDGMENT

Maheshan Nagaprasanna, J. - The petitioners in all these cases are Officers of the Bengaluru Development Authority, working in the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer and Assistant Engineer.

2. All the petitioners call in question proceedings in C.C. No. 5017/2021, pending on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 406, 409, 417, 463, 465, 467, 470, 420, 471, 473, 472, 474, 475, 476 r/w. 511 of the IPC. Petitioners are accused Nos. 16, 13, 23, 11 and 15 respectively.

3. Heard Sri Nitin R., learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt. K.P. Yashoda, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No. 1 and Sri Akshay Gowda, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

4. Brief facts as projected by the prosecution, are as follows:

The petitioners who are the Officers of the Bengaluru Development Authority (for short 'the BDA') are working in the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer and the Assistant Engineer, are entrusted with the work of preparation of the Correct Dimension Report (hereinafter referred to as 'CDR' for short). A complaint is registered by respondent No. 2 alleging that the Officials of the BDA have joined hands with one Indar Kumar-accused No. 2 in creating certain documents for the purpose of fictitious allotment of sites coming under the precincts of the BDA. It transpires that, when the office of accused No. 2 was searched, at which point in time, the police came in possession of certain CDRs' inter alia. Those CDRs' were the ones prepared by the petitioners, which was at its draft stage. Therefore, it would be referred to as draft CDRs' prepared by the petitioners. It is at that stage, those documents were found in the office of accused No. 2. Based upon the said search, a crime is registered against the petitioners and several others in crime No. 89/2020, for the offences under Sections 406, 409, 467, 470, 420, 471, 473, 472, 474, 475 and 476 of IPC.

5. After the registration of the aforesaid crime, investigation is conducted and final report / charge sheet is filed by the police. In the interregnum, a communication by the Law Officer is sent to the Investigating Officer that the sanction to proceed further against the petitioners who are accused Nos. 16, 13, 23, 11 and 15, is imperative and seeks information with regard to such sanction. The communication is sent on 02.03.2021, which is long before filing of the final report / charge sheet by the police before the Court, which comes about only on 04.12.2021. Therefore, it is an admitted fact that the proceedings are sought to be proceeded without at the outset a sanction for such proceedings or trial as obtaining under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. It is at that stage, the petitioners have knocked the doors of this Court in the present petitions.

6. Sri Nitin R., learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that non-according of sanction is an admitted fact, but even on the merit of the matter, there is no warrant to proceed further against the petitioners, even if sanction is accorded by the competent authority. Learned counsel would submit that the statement of witnesses, if looked into, there is no whisper about the names of the petitioners, in all 212 statements that are recorded of the witnesses and if the names of the petitioners figure nowhere, the conduct of the trial or conduct of any proceedings against the petitioners would become an abuse of the process of law. He would submit that, in the logical end if the petitioners are going to be acquitted in the trial for want of evidence, that would be an appropriate case for quashment of the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

7. On the other hand, Sri Akshay Gowda, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 would vehemently refute the submissions and contend that the allegations against these petitioners are clearly found in the summary of the charge sheet filed by the police and it is a matter of trial that the petitioners will