Back
B. R. GAVAI, J. B. PARDIWALA
A. Sreenivasa Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Rakesh Sharma – Respondent
A person employed as Assistant General Manager in a nationalized bank qualifies as a public servant, but Section 197 CrPC does not apply because such employees are removable without government sanction. (!) [1000779710044][1000779710045]
Section 197 CrPC requires prior sanction only for public servants not removable from office except by or with government sanction, when accused of offences committed while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duty. [1000779710037][1000779710039][1000779710040][1000779710042]
Offences under IPC and PC Act 1988 are distinct; absence of sanction under Section 19 PC Act does not bar prosecution for IPC offences, as sanctions operate in different fields with different prerequisites. [1000779710052][1000779710053][1000779710054][1000779710056][1000779710057]
No thumb rule exists that sanction under Section 19 PC Act is the sole prerequisite before a Special Judge; for non-PC Act offences (e.g., IPC), court must examine at cognizance or later stages if Section 197 CrPC sanction is needed based on nexus to official duty. [1000779710058]
Test for Section 197 CrPC sanction is nexus between alleged act/omission and official duty; committing a punishable offence cannot be part of official duty, but reasonable connection to duty performance may require protection unless used as cloak for illicit acts. [1000779710058]
Bank employees deemed public servants under PC Act due to RBI governance, Article 12, and Section 46A Banking Regulation Act, but this does not extend Section 197 CrPC protection absent removability condition. [1000779710048]
Prosecution can proceed on IPC charges (e.g., Sections 120B r/w 420, 468, 471) despite discharge from PC Act charges for want of Section 19 sanction, as IPC offences lack such mandatory sanction requirement here. [1000779710014][1000779710057][1000779710060]
Appellant (bank official) accused of conspiracy to cheat bank via irregular loan sanctions; discharged from PC Act offences after sanction quashed, but IPC proceedings continued as no Section 197 CrPC sanction required. [1000779710002][1000779710004][1000779710014][1000779710015][1000779710060]
Appeal dismissed; trial court to proceed on IPC charges, with direction for expeditious disposal. [1000779710018][1000779710060]
JUDGMENT :
J.B. PARDIWALA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court for the State of Telangana dated 20.06.2022 in the Criminal Petition No. 6782 of 2019 filed by the appellant herein by which the High Court rejected the petition and thereby declined to quash the criminal proceedings instituted against the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B r/w 420, 468 and 471 respectively of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’).
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The appellant herein (Original Accused No. 2) at the relevant point of time was serving as an Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Overseas Bank (Bank), Hyderabad. He is alleged to have conspired with other co-accused to cheat the Bank by sanctioning a corporate loan of Rs. 22.50 crore in favour of M/s Sven Genetech Limited, Secunderabad (Original Accused No. 1).
4. It appears from the materials on record that the company referred to above had applied for loan for the purpose of purchase of new equipments/implementation of the e
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
