The absence of sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act does not hinder prosecution under the Indian Penal Code if the offences are distinct and not connected to official duties.

ORDER :

MOHAMMAD NAWAZ, J.

The petitioner, who has been arrainged as accused No.6 in the supplementary charge sheet filed by the respondent/CBI, seeks to quash the entire proceedings pending in Special C.C.No.1629/2023, on the file of the XXI Additional City Civil and Special Judge for CBI cases (CCH-4), Bengaluru City. 2. Heard the respective learned counsels and perused the material on record.

3. The brief facts of the case, as could be seen from the material on record, are as under:

The CBI/ACB, Bengaluru vide RC 16A/2020/CBI/ACB, Bangalore dated 02.12.2020 registered a case on the complaint of Sri Basanth Chakravarthy, DGM, IDBI Bank Ltd., NPA Management Group, Bangalore against M/s. Green Organics (India) Pvt. Ltd., along with three others and other unknown public servants under Sections 120B, 420, 409, 477A of the IPC and Section 13 (2) r/w (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('P.C. Act, 1988' for short).

4. The charge sheet was filed against accused Nos.1 to 6, wherein the petitioner, DGM [then AGM], IDBI, Corporate Centre Mumbai, was shown as accused No.6, for the offences punishable under Sections 120B read with 420, 409, 471 of IPC and Sections 11, 13(2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988. While submitting the final report, sanction for prosecution as against the petitioner was not submitted. The jurisdictional Court returned the complete charge sheet to investigate and to resubmit the final report after receiving the sanction order under Section 19 of the P.C. Act, 1988 against the petitioner. The sanction sought to prosecute the petitioner was however denied. A supplementary charge sheet was filed against him for the offences punishable under Sections 120B read with Sections 420 , 409 and 471 of the .

5. The learned Magistrate accepted the said supplementary charge sheet noting that the petitioner/accused No.6 has used forged documents as genuine by knowing that they are forged documents and there are materials to show that he has committed the offence punishable under Section 471 of IPC . It was also noted that the cognizance had already been taken earlier for the offences punishable under Section 120B read with Sections 409 , 420 and 477A of the and Section 13 (2) read with (1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988.

6. It is vehemently contented by the learned counsel for petitioner, drawing the attention of the Court to Annexure- B, the communication dated 07.09.2023 between the Chief Vigilance Officer, IDBI Bank and the Superintendent of Police and HoB, CBI that, as per the said communication, the Chief Vigilance Officer was of the considered opinion that the acts of omission/lapses on the part of the petitioner, DGM (then AGM) indicates procedural lapses and gross negligence in discharging his duties rather than any malafide intent or deliberate attempts to cause loss to the bank and therefore, the sanction for prosecution against the officer is not warranted.

7. It is contented that the entire charge sheet material does not indicate any role played by the petitioner so as to invoke any of the offences now alleged against him and the concerned/ Competent Authority has refused to grant sanction to prosecute and therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner is an abuse of process of law.

8. Elaborating the above, the learned counsel has contented that, after an enquiry, the petitioner was found guilty of only procedural lapses by the Competent Authority of IDBI Bank and the penalty imposed was reduction to a lower procedural lapses of the Statute and not any other offence and the lapses pointed out in the supplementary charge sheet relates to lack of due diligence