LexA. SREENIVASA REDDY versus RAKESH SHARMA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 932 : 2023 INSC 682 932 CASE DETAILS A. SREENIVASA REDDY v. RAKESH SHARMA AND ANR. (Criminal appeal No. 2339 of 2023) AUGUST 08, 2023 [B. R. GAVAI AND J.B. PARDIWALA, JJ.] HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the appellant, an Assistant General Manager of a Nationalised Bank is removable from his offi ce save by or with the sanction of the Government so as to make s.197, CrPC applicable; and if he can be proceeded against for off ences punishable under the IPC despite the sanction u/s.19, PC Act, 1988 to prosecute him for the off ences thereunder was declined. 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 off ence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his offi cial 933 duty” whereas, the off ences contemplated in the PC Act, 1988 cannot be treated as acts either directly or even purportedly done in the discharge of his offi cial duties – Off ences under the IPC and the PC Act, 1988 are diff erent and distinct – A distinction is to be drawn between an order of sanction required for prosecuting a person for commission of an off ence under the IPC and the PC Act, 1988 – Thus, although, the appellant was discharged from the off ences punishable under the PC Act, 1988 yet for the IPC off ences, 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 – Diff erence between: Held: In the prosecution for the off ences 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 offi cial 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 eff ect on the trial of the IPC off ences: 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 off ence 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] A. SREENIVASA REDDY v. RAKESH SHARMA AND ANR. 934 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 12 S.C.R. 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 96
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.