Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.197 – When not attracted: Held: Although a person working in a Nationalised Bank is a public servant, yet the provisions of s.197 would not be attracted at all as s.197 is attracted only in cases where the public servant is such who is not removable from his service save by or with the sanction of the Government – Appellant, an Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Overseas Bank is not holding a post where he could not be removed from service except by or with the sanction of the Government – Thus, even if it is alleged that he is a public servant, still the provisions of s.197 are not attracted – Protection of s.197(1) is available only to such public servants whose appointing authority is the Central Government or the State Government and not to every public servant – Banking sector being governed by the RBI and considered as a limb of the State u/Art.12 and also by virtue of s.46A, Banking Regulation Act, 1949, the appellant is deemed to be a “public servant” under the PCAct, 1988 however, the same cannot be extended to the IPC – Further,sanction contemplated u/s.197, CrPC concerns a public servant who “is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty” whereas, the offences contemplated in the PC Act, 1988 cannot be treated as acts either directly or even purportedly done in the discharge of his official duties – Offences under the IPC and the PC Act, 1988 are different and distinct – A distinction is to be drawn between an order of sanction required for prosecuting a person for commission of an offence under the IPC and the PC Act, 1988 – Thus, although, the appellant was discharged from the offences punishable under the PC Act, 1988 yet for the IPC offences, he can be proceeded further in accordance with law. [Paras 41, 45, 49, 53-55 and 58]
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s.19 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.197 – Statutory requirements – Difference between: Held: In the prosecution for the offences exclusively under the PC Act, 1988, sanction is mandatory qua the public servant – In cases under the general penal law against the public servant, the necessity (or otherwise) of sanction u/s.197, CrPC depends on the factual aspects – The test in the latter case is of the “nexus” between the act of commission or omission and the official duty of the public servant. [Para 59]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.216 – Importance given to sanction – Discussed. [Para 44]
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s.19 – Sanction under, if declined on the ground that prosecution against the accused could be frivolous or vexatious, its effect on the trial of the IPC offences: Held: This question is not being gone into in the present matter as sanction initially was not declined on the ground that the prosecution against the appellant was frivolous or vexatious but on the ground that what was alleged were mere procedural irregularities in discharge of essential duties – Whether such procedural irregularities constitute any offence under the IPC or not will be looked into by the trial court – The issue highlighted may be examined by Supreme Court in some other litigation at an appropriate time. [Para 60]
Words and Phrases – ‘sanction’ in s.197, CrPC – Meaning: Held: In s.197, CrPC, the word ‘sanction’ has been used as a verb and, therefore, it will mean to assent, to concur or approval. [Para 43] LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
K. Ch. Prasad v. Smt. J. Vanalatha Devi and Others (1987) 2 SCC 52: [1987] 2 SCR 216; S.K. Miglani v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2019) 6 SCC 111: [2019] 6 SCR 1158; Kalicharan Mahapatra v. State of Orissa, (1998)
6 SCC 411: [1998] 3 SCR 961; Lalu Prasad alias Lalu Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar (2007) 1 SCC 4 – relied on.
Parkash Singh Badaland Another v. State of Punjab and Others (2007)
1 SCC 1: [2006] 10 Suppl. SCR 197; A. Srinivasulu v. The State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Criminal Appeal No. 2417 of 2010 decided on 15.06.2023 Station House Officer, CBI/ACB/Bangalore v. B.A. Srinivasan and Another (2020) 2 SCC 153: [2019] 14 SCR 513 – referred to. U.S. v. Tillinghast D.G., 55 F.2d 279; Gokulchand Dwarka Das Morarka v. King AIR 1948 PC 82; Gokulchand Dwarka Das Morarka v. King AIR 1948 PC 82 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.