STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CBI/ACB/BANGALORE versus B.A. SRINIVASAN AND ANR.

Citation: [2019] 14 S.C.R. 513 · Decided: 05-12-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
513
STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CBI/ACB/BANGALORE
v.
B.A. SRINIVASAN AND ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1837 of 2019)
DECEMBER 05, 2019
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, INDU MALHOTRA AND
KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947: s.19 – Requirement of
sanction – Held: Sanction to prosecute public servant is not required
if the public servant has already retired on the date of cognizance
of the court – Thus, protection under s.19 is not available to public
servant after he demitted his office or retired from service – Public
servant.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.197 – Protection under
s.197 is available to the public servants when an offence is said to
have been committed ‘while acting or purporting to act in discharge
of their official duty’, but where the acts are performed using the
office as a mere cloak for unlawful gains, such acts are not protected
– Issue whether the alleged act is intricately connected with the
discharge of official functions and whether the matter would come
within the expression ‘while acting or purporting to act in discharge
of their official duty’, would get crystalized only after evidence is
led and the issue of sanction can be agitated at a later stage as well
– Public servant.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: It was held in Labh Singh case that  sanction to
prosecute the public servant for the offences under the PC Act is
not required if the public servant had already retired on the date
of cognizance by the court. In view of the said judgment, there
was no occasion or reason to entertain any application seeking
discharge in respect of offences punishable under the Act, on the
ground of absence of any sanction under Section 19 of the Act.
The High Court was also not justified in observing
‘that the protection available to a public servant while in service,
should also be available after his retirement’. Again, it has
 [2019] 14 S.C.R. 513
513
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
514
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 14 S.C.R.
consistently been laid down that the protection under Section
197 of the Code is available to the public servants when an offence
is said to have been committed ‘while acting or purporting to act
in discharge of their official duty’, but where the acts are performed
using  the office as a mere cloak for unlawful gains, such acts are
not protected. It has also been observed by this Court that, at
times, the issue whether the alleged act is intricately connected
with the discharge of official functions and whether the matter
would come within the expression ‘while acting or purporting to
act in discharge of their official duty’, would get crystalized only
after evidence is led and the issue of sanction can be agitated at
a later stage as well. [Paras 9-12][523-C, F-G; 524-A; 525-E-F]
State of Punjab v. Labh Singh (2014) 16 SCC 807 :
[2014] 11 SCR 312; S.A. Venkataraman v. The State
[1958] SCR 1037; Inspector of Police and another  v.
Battenapatla Venkata Ratnam and another (2015)13
SCC 87 : [2015] 4  SCR 609; P.K. Pradhan v. State of
Sikkim represented by the Central Bureau of
Investigation (2001) 6 SCC 704 : [2001] 3 SCR 1119
– relied on
Rishipal Singh  v.  State of Uttar Pradesh and another
(2014) 7 SCC 215 : [2014] 6 SCR 1012; Anil Kumar
Bose  v. State of Bihar (1974) 4 SCC 616 : [1974] 3
SCR 902 – distinguished.
N.K. Ganguly v. CBI, New Delhi (2016) 2 SCC 143 :
[2015] 10 SCR 192; Kalicharan Mahapatra v. State of
Orissa AIR 1998 SC 2595 : [1998] 3 SCR 961;
R. Balakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala (1996) 1 SCC
478 : [1995] 6 Suppl SCR 236 – referred to
Case Law Reference
[1998] 3 SCR 961
referred to
Para 6
[1995] 6 Suppl. SCR 236
referred to
Para 6
[2014] 11 SCR 312
relied on
Para 6
[2015] 10 SCR 192
referred to
Para 6
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
515
[1958] SCR 1037
relied on
Para 9
[2015] 4 SCR 609
relied on
Para 11
[2001] 3 SCR 1119
relied on
Para 12
[2014] 6 SCR 1012
distinguished
Para 14
[1974] 3 SCR 902
distinguished
Para 14
[1974] 3 SCR 902
distinguished
Para 14
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1837 of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated  08.08.2018 of the High
Court  of  Karnataka at Bengaluru in Criminal Revision Petition No. 834
of 2015.
Ms. Sonia Mathur, Sr. Adv., Vivek Narayan Sharma, Sachin
Sharma, Sushil Dubey, Ms. Divya Nair, Anuj Aggarwal, Puneet Pathak,
Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ms. V. Mohana, Sr. Adv., Ms. Rajani K. Prasad,
Ms. N. Annapoorani, Advs. for the Respondents.
 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
UDAY UMESH
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.