http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 7

CASE NO.:

Appeal (crl.) 1279 of 2002

PETITIONER:

State of Karnataka through CBI

RESPONDENT:

C. Nagarajaswamy

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/10/2005

BENCH:

S.B. Sinha & R.V. Raveendran

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 137 OF 2003

State of Karnataka through CBI \005Appellant

Versus

M.K. Vijayalakshmi \005Respondent

S.B. SINHA, J :

Interpretation of Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for

short "the Code") is in question in these appeals which arise out of

judgments and orders dated 9.1.2002 and 10.4.2002 in Criminal Petition

Nos. 330 of 2000 and 4007 of 2001 respectively passed by the High Court of

Karnataka at Bangalore.

We will notice the fact of both the appeals separately.

Criminal Appeal No. 1279 of 2002

The Respondent herein was working as a Junior Telecom Officer in

Shankarapuram Telecom Exchange. One R. Veera Prathap made a

complaint that he had demanded an illegal gratification for showing official

favour whereupon a case in Crime No. R.C. 34A/1994 was registered. A

charge sheet was filed therein and the Special Judge for CBI cases,

Bangalore by an order dated 16.7.1999 took cognizance of an offence under

Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the Act"). In

the trial, 12 witnesses were examined. The statement of Respondent under

Section 313 of the Code was also recorded.

The learned Special Judge formulated two points for his

determination:

"1. Whether the prosecution has proved that the

sanction accorded for the prosecution of the

accused in this case is a valid sanction?

2. Whether the prosecution has further proved

beyond any reasonable doubt that the accused has

committed the offences punishable under S.7 and

under S. 13(1)(d) R/w. S 13(2) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988?"

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 7

In regard to point No. 1, the learned Special Judge was of the opinion

that the sanction for prosecution accorded by PW11 was illegal and in that

view of the matter, the same was determined in favour of the Respondent.

In view of his findings as regard point No. 1, the learned Special Judge did

not record any finding on point No. 2 and directed as under:

"Accused C. Nagarajaswamy is hereby discharged

from the proceedings and his bail bonds stand

cancelled."

A fresh charge sheet was filed after obtaining an order of sanction

which came to be challenged before the High Court by the Respondent in an

application filed under Section 482 of the Code.

Criminal Appeal No. 137 of 2003

The Respondent herein was working as a Manager in State Bank of

Mysore, 4th Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore. She had dominion and control

over the management of the accounts of the Bank. She allegedly

misappropriated a sum of Rs. 40,000/- wherefor a chargesheet was filed on

27.12.1984. While the criminal proceedings were pending, she was

dismissed from service by an order dated 1.6.1985. She faced a full-fledged

trial. She was examined under Section 313 of the Code and also laid

defence evidence. The question as regard sanction accorded by the

Managing Director of the Bank was raised by the Respondent herein before

the learned XXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions and Special Judge,

Bangalore, contending that only the Board of Directors was the competent

authority therefor. By a judgment and order dated 14.11.1991, the learned

XXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions and Special Judge while accepting the

said plea directed:

"The sanction order (Ex. P28) is invalid. The

sanctioning authority was not competent to issue

the said sanction order. Further proceedings of the

case is stopped and the accused is released. The

Bail bond of the accused is cancelled\005"

A second charges