LexM. GOPALAKRISHNAN versus STATE BY ADDL. S.P. CBI, B.S. & F.C., BANGALORE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. [2009] 3 S.C.R. 151 .r M. GOPALAKRISHNAN A v. STATE BY ADDL. S.P. CBI, B.S. & F.C., BANGALORE (Criminal Appeal No. 505 of 2006) FEBRUARY 11, 2009 B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 : c ss. 197 and 482 - Petition for quashing of criminal prosecution against Chairman and managing director of a Banking company for lack of sanction uls 197 - Held : Banking Regulation Act would prevail over the Nationalised J Banks (Management and Miscellaneous provisions), D Scheme, 1970 - In view of specific provision for removal of Chairman under the 1949 Act, prima facie, he would not come within the scope of s.197 - Besides, it is yet to be established whether the acts were committed by the accused in the position of his official duty - Judgment of High Court E dismissing the petition does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 120-B and 420 - Prevention of Corr.uption Act, 1988 - ss 11, 12, 13(1) and 13(2) - Banking Regulation Act, 1949 - Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970. F A case uls 120-B read withs. 420 IPC and ss. 11, 12 and 13(2) read with ss. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered by CBI against the appellant-Executive Director and Chairman and Managing Director, Indian Bank. The appellant filed a petition uls G 482 CrPC seeking to quash the proceedings. The other accused also filed similar petitions. The High Court dismissed the petitions. Aggrieved, the accused filed the appeals. 151 H 152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 3 S.C.R. A It was contended for the appellant in Crl. A. No. 505 of 2006, that his appointment having been made by the Central Government under the provisions of Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970 and, as such, he being a public servant, · B in the absence of any sanction u/s 197(1 )(a) 01f the Code, cognizance taken by the court was invalid. The stand of the respondent was that under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, the Chairman of a Banking Company would be appointed only by the Reserve Bank of India which alone C would be the authority competent to remove the Chairman and, therefore, provisions of s. 197 of the Code would not be attracted. Dismissing the appeals, the Court D HELD: Banking Regulation Act, 1949 shall prevail over the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1920 which was formulated u/s 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. In this view, the E appellant cannot claim to be a 'public servant' not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government. In view of the specific provisions available for removal of the Chairman UJlder the 1949 Act, it is prima facie clear that the appellant will not come within F the scope of s.197 of the Code. Besides, the High Court has rightly held that the question whether the appellant is removable from service by the Reserve Bank or the Central Government is really of an academic interest because it is yet to be established that the impugned acts G were done by the appellant in the position of his official duty. The order of the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference. [Para 16, 19 and 20] [159-B-C; 160-8] P.K. Pradhan v. State of Sikkim 2001 SCC (Crl.) 1234 H M. GOPALAKRISHNAN v. STATE BY ADDL. S.P. CBI, B.S. 153 & F.C., BANGALORE and Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab 2007 (1) SCC A 1, relied on Case Law Reference: 2001 sec (Crl.) 1234 relied on para 17 B 2001 (1) sec 1 relied on para 20 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 505 of 2006. From the Order dated 31.3.2004 of the High Court of c Judicature at Madras in Crl.O.P. No. 4313 of 2003. WITH " Criminal Appeal Nos. 274, 277, 278, 279 and 280 of 2009. .. D K. Ramamoorthy, V.G. Pragasam, S.J. Aristotle, S. Mukandan and Prabu Ramasubramanian for the Appellant. B.B. Singh and P. Parmeswaran for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by E ~ DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted in Special Leave Petitions. A 2. Challenge in all these appeals is to the order passed F - by a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court in each case dismissing the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code'). Stand
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.