IMPORTANT POINT
No previous sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. is required for a Bank Manager and there is no requirement of obtaining the previous sanction under Section 19 of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 when the public servant has already been dismissed from service prior to the date of taking cognizance.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following relief:

Quash the entire proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.271/2016 pending on the file of the Hon’ble XXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge & Prl. Special Judge for CBI cases at Bengaluru, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120-B r/w 409, 420, 467, 467, 471 of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c)(d) of PC Act 1988.

2. The first information has submitted by the General Manager-Vijaya Bank, Head Office, Bangalore-respondent No.2 herein to the CBI, Bangalore on 27.2.2015 on which basis Crime No.RC03(A)/2015/ACB came to be registered under Section 120-B, read with Section 409, 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c)(d) of the P.C. Act for the offences of criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery using forged documents as genuine and criminal misconduct. The investigation, having been entrusted to the Police Inspector of CBI, investigation was carried out.

3. A gist of the complaint was that there being a suspicion by service cell, central inspection department of the Bank as regards the credit transaction happening in a particular account, the said cell got suspicious and decided to investigate the account. Upon investigation it was revealed that the petitioner who is accused No.1 & certain others had entered into a criminal conspiracy among themselves during year 2014-15 in the matter of opening of the current accounts in the name of M/s Prince Links, M/s JMJ Enterprises.

4. Fixed deposit held in the account of M/s Mysore Mineral Limited (MNL) and Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (RGUHS) where pre-closed and those amount were transferred to the account of M/s Prince Links and M/s JMJ Enterprises based on false and fabricated documents and it is in that manner that is alleged that a loss of Rs.22.5 crores was caused to the complainant-Bank. On that basis the trail Court took cognizance for the aforesaid offences on 18.6.2016, it is challenging the said FIR and order of cognizance that the petitioner is before this Court.

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that;

5.1. The petitioner has been charged with offences under section 409, 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC and as such before cognizance could be taken by the Court necessary previous sanction was to be obtained under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. without previous sanction the trial Court ought not to have taken cognizance.

5.2. Insofar as the offences under Section 13(2), 13(1)(c) and (d) are concerned his submission is that necessary sanction has to be obtained under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the same not having been done the cognizance taken by the trial Court is improper and as such he submits that no prosecution could have been initiated against the petitioner and no cognizance could be taken and proceedings are required to be quashed.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 would submit that;

6.1. The petitioner is not a public servant in the strictest terms, the petitioner is the Bank Manager of the Vijaya Bank would discharges public functions and would come within the purview of Section 197 but would not be eligible for contending that the previous sanction is required to be obtained and in this regard he relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in A. Sreenivasa Reddy v. Rakesh Sharma, 2023 (8) SCC 711 more particularly para 45 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference;

45. The appellant was serving as an Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Overseas Bank at Hyderabad. State Bank of India is a nationalised bank. Although a person working in a nationalised bank is a public servant, yet the provisions of Section 197 CrPC would not be attracted at all as Section 197 is attracted only in cases where the public servant is such who is not removable from his service save by or with the sanction of the Government. It is not disputed that the appellant is not holding a post where he could not