The necessity of obtaining prior sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. for prosecuting public servants is crucial, and exoneration in departmental proceedings can impact criminal prosecutions when based on the same facts.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - CONVICTION AND SANCTION - IPC SECTIONS 406, 408, 409, 420; Cr.P.C. SECTION 197 - The court discussed the necessity of obtaining prior sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. for prosecuting public servants. It emphasized that without such sanction, the courts cannot take cognizance of the offence. The court also highlighted the importance of the relationship between the alleged act and the discharge of official duties, referencing Supreme Court judgments that clarify the limits of protection under Section 197. The absence of sanction led to the conclusion that the conviction was unsustainable.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Executive Officer of Taluk Panchayath, was accused of misappropriating Rs. 13,41,000 by drawing a self-cheque. He was convicted under various sections of the IPC by the Trial Court, and the conviction was upheld by the Appellate Court. The petitioner challenged these findings in a revision petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lower courts erred in convicting the petitioner without the necessary sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. It noted that the Investigating Officer failed to obtain the required permission before proceeding with the case against the public servant.
Issues: Whether the prosecution against the petitioner was valid without prior sanction as required under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., and whether the exoneration in the departmental inquiry should influence the criminal proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the absence of sanction under Section 197 rendered the criminal proceedings invalid. It also established that exoneration in a departmental inquiry on the same facts should benefit the accused in criminal proceedings, especially when the standard of proof is higher in criminal cases.
Final Decision: The court allowed the Criminal Revision Petition, set aside the judgments of conviction and sentence, and acquitted the petitioner of all charges under the IPC.

JUDGMENT

1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 21/1/2020 in C.C.No.337/2011 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Srinivasapura, and its confirmation judgment and order dtd. 11/4/2022 in Crl.A.No.15/2020 on the file of the Court of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kolar, has filed this revision petition seeking to set aside the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, wherein the petitioner / accused is convicted for the offences punishable under Ss. 406, 408, 409 and 420 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').

2. The petitioner is the accused before the Trial Court and appellant before the Appellate Court.

Brief facts of the case are:

3. It is the case of the prosecution that, the petitioner was working as Executive Officer of Taluk Panchayath, Srinivasapura from 26/3/2010 to 28/9/2010. It is alleged that, he has misused or misappropriated a sum of Rs.13, 41, 000.00 by drawing the said amount through self- cheque bearing No.207941 dtd. 17/7/2010 at Pragathi Gramin Bank, Srinivasapura Branch, from Bank Account No.25070. As such, a complaint came to be lodged by PW.2. On the basis of the said complaint, the jurisdictional police have registered a case and conducted investigation and submitted charge sheet for the offences stated supra.

4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined 16 witnesses namely PWs.1 to 16 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P39. On the other hand, the accused / petitioner examined himself as DW.1 and also got marked Exhibits D1 to D11. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the petitioner for the offences stated supra. On appeal being filed, the Appellate Court after re-appreciating oral and documentary evidence on record, dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition seeking to set aside the concurrent findings.

5. Heard Shri Sunil Kumar.S., learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rahul Rai.K., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent / State.

6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the concurrent findings recorded for conviction by the Courts below are perverse, erroneous and opposed to law and facts. Hence, the conviction recorded by the Courts below is required to be set aside.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has canvassed his arguments mainly on two grounds, firstly, the prosecution has failed to obtain sanction as required under Sec. 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "Cr.P.C.") before filing the charge sheet or taking cognizance of the case whichever is earlier. Secondly, he submitted that, in the departmental enquiry on the same set of allegations and evidence of same witnesses, the petitioner got exonerated. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for acquittal. To substantiate his contention, he relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of A.SRINIVASULU v. THE STATE, REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, 2023 Live Law (SC) 485. INDRA DEVI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & Another, (2021) 8 SCC 768. and D.DEVARAJA v. OWAIS SABEER HUSSAIN, (2020) 7 SCC 695. . Making such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.

8. Per contra learned High Court Government Pleader (for short "HCGP") justified the concurrent findings of conviction recorded by the Courts below and submits that, the guidelines issued by the Government of Karnataka in respect of drawing of the amount by the Government officials have been violated by the petitioner. Even though he was not supposed to draw the amount by using the self-cheque, the petitioner misappropriated the amount which was drawn by him and the petitioner had failed to account for the same. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court, afte