The court established that a public servant on a contract basis does not require government sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., and that a complaint filed by a public body is validly authorized.

JUDGMENT

1. Criminal Petition No.6208/2013 is filed by the accused challenging the proceedings initiated against him in C.C.No.22097/2011 pending trial before the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, for the offences punishable under Sec. 464, 465, 467, 468 and 420 read with Sec. 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (henceforth referred to as 'IPC' for short).

2. Criminal Petition No.5946/2016 is filed by the accused challenging the order dtd. 31/10/2015 passed in C.C.No.22097/2011 by the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.

3. The petitioner, who had retired as a Deputy Accountant General (Accounts), was appointed on contract basis as a Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer on consolidated pay to the Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board, Bangalore for a period of two years. A private complaint was filed by the respondent, contending that it had invited tenders for a supply of drinking water project to Chikkamagaluru and K.R.Nagar. One of the bidders, namely Supreme Chemiplast Piping Private Ltd., submitted the lowest bid, which was accepted, and the respondent/Board had entrusted two projects to the contractor.

4. As per the terms and conditions of the contract, the contractor had to furnish a bank guarantee of a sum for Rs.78, 24, 000.00 as performance guarantee and for a sum of Rs.1, 30, 40, 000.00 towards mobilization advance. The petitioner, who was then appointed as Financial Advisor, was required to verify the genuineness of the Bank guarantees furnished by the contractor and advise the Managing Director to release the payments to the contractor. Accordingly, the contractor had furnished four Bank guarantees issued by Oriental Bank of Commerce, Chennai, and claimed the mobilization advance. As per the practice in vogue, the petitioner got the Bank guarantees verified and as per his office note dtd. 15/2/1999 at paragraph No.4 he endorsed, "The above Bank guarantees have been confirmed by the bankers in their letter No.BG3/97 dtd. 10/2/1999. This was also got confirmed over the phone today from Mr.Devanathan, Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Chennai, vide phone No.044-8223179". He also noted that the agreement with respect to the K.R.Nagar and Chikkamagaluru projects was signed by the representative of the contractor, as informed by the respective Executive Engineer. Therefore, he sought the opinion of the Managing Director as to whether the mobilization advance of Rs.30, 50, 000.00 for the K.R.Nagar project and a sum of Rs.1, 30, 40, 000.00 for the Chikkamagaluru project could be released. On the advice of the petitioner, the Managing Director released the mobilization advance for the Chikkamagaluru project, but in respect of K.R.Nagar, he deferred the payment till the date the performance guarantee was extended.

5. Later, on 18/2/1999, the petitioner put up a note to release the mobilization advance of Rs.30, 50, 000.00 for the K.R.Nagar project to the firm. Accordingly, the Managing Director approved the payment. The contractor, after receiving the mobilization advance, purportedly did not complete the project but abandoned it midway. Therefore, the respondent terminated the contract and proposed to recover the money covered by invoking the Bank guarantees furnished by the contractor. The Board deputed its official to Chennai to encash the Bank guarantees on 2/2/2000. However, the official found that the Branch of Oriental Bank of Commerce in Chennai was fictitious as no such branch of the bank at the address mentioned in the bank guarantees was in existence. The official contacted the Branch of Oriental Bank of Commerce at Spencer Plaza, Chennai, and found that the Bank guarantees furnished were fake. The Oriental Bank of Commerce issued a letter dtd. 4/2/2000 stating that the signatures found on the Bank guarantees were not that of Mr.Devanathan and that they had no Branch at Spur Tank Road, Chennai. Therefore, the respondent alleged that the petitioner had misled the