Public servant needs protection from prosecution under IPC only if acts are connected to official duties; lack of nexus and undue delay infringes the right to a speedy trial.

JUDGMENT :

G. SATAPATHY, J.

1. This criminal revision U/S. 401 read with Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (In short the ‘Cr.P.C.’) assails the order passed on 18.08.2014 by learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Cuttack in TR Case No. 213 of 2007 refusing to discharge the Petitioner for commission of the offences under IPC while discharging him for commission of offence under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, “PC Act”) in an application U/S. 239 of Cr.P.C.

2. Facts in nutshell are, on receipt of reliable information of misappropriation of Government subsidy money of Rs. 1,50,000/-, an enquiry was taken up by the Vigilance Unit of Cuttack and accordingly, it was found that during 1990-91, 150 shallow point tube- wells(SPTW) were sanctioned by the Government for Raghunathpur Block and accordingly, an amount of Rs. 2,49,000/- was granted and placed under the disposal of BDO, Raghunathpur for execution of the work under the scheme, but the Petitioner who was a JE then and other officials including the BDO in connivance with the beneficiaries misappropriated the subsidy money of Rs. 1,47,000/- sanctioned against 49 beneficiaries and thereby, committed criminal misconduct by producing fake cash memos regarding purchase of materials for sinking of SPTWs and furnishing false completion certificates of installation.

On this incident, an FIR was lodged against the Petitioner and others which was registered vide Cuttack Vigilance PS Case No.05 of 1993 and the matter was investigated into. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the Petitioner and 55 others for commission of offences punishable U/Ss. 13(2) r/w Sec. 13(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the ‘Act’) and U/Ss. 409/420/468/471/477(A)/34 of IPC under which cognizance was taken, but subsequently the Petitioner preferred an application before the Special Judge, Vigilance, Cuttack seeking discharge in this case for commission of the offences under PC Act and for want of sanction. However, the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, by the impugned order dated 18.08.2014 discharged the Petitioner for commission of offences under the PC Act for want of sanction U/S. 19 of the PC Act, but directed to frame charge against him for commission of offences punishable U/Ss. 409/420/ 468/ 471/477(A)/34 of on the ground that Sec. 197 of the Cr.P.C. does not provide protection to the Petitioner since commission of offences by the Petitioner has no nexus in due discharge of his duties. Hence, this criminal revision by the Petitioner.

3. Mr. R. Roy, learned counsel for the Petitioner has confined his submission only in respect of discharge of the Petitioner for offences U/Ss. 409/420/468/471/ 477(A)/34 IPC for want of sanction as contemplated U/S. 197 of the Cr.P.C. and for delay in disposal of the case which seriously affects the right of the Petitioner to speedy trial. Mr. Roy has accordingly, relied upon the decisions in A. Srinivasulu Vs. State Represented by Inspector of Police , (2020) LiveLaw SC 485 and Vakil Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar , (2009) 3 SCC 355.

4. On the other hand, Mr. S. Das, learned Standing Counsel for Vigilance by supporting the impugned order has submitted that although Sec. 19 of the PC Act provides protection to the Petitioner from proceeding further against him in respect of offences committed under the PC Act, but there is no such protection U/S. 197 of the Cr.P.C. to proceed against the Petitioner for commission of offences under IPC since by no stretch of