TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether an Assistant General Manager of a nationalised bank is a public servant not removable from office save by or with the sanction of the Government so as to attract Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for prosecution under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. (ii) Whether the absence of sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 bars prosecution for the IPC offences when the accused has been discharged from the PC Act offences.
Issue (i): Whether an Assistant General Manager of a nationalised bank is a public servant not removable from office save by or with the sanction of the Government so as to attract Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for prosecution under the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Analysis: Section 197 applies only to a public servant who is not removable from office save by or with the sanction of the Government and who is alleged to have acted or purported to act in discharge of official duty. A person working in a nationalised bank may be a public servant for some purposes, but that status does not by itself satisfy the statutory condition for Section 197. The protective umbrella depends on the source and mode of removal, and the necessary governmental sanction for removal was absent in the present case.
Conclusion: The appellant could not invoke Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the challenge based on absence of such sanction failed.
Issue (ii): Whether the absence of sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 bars prosecution for the IPC offences when the accused has been discharged from the PC Act offences.
Analysis: The sanction regime under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the sanction requirement under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 operate in different fields. Sanction under Section 19 is required for offences under the PC Act, while the IPC prosecution must independently satisfy the test under Section 197, if applicable. Discharge from PC Act offences on account of want of sanction does not automatically terminate prosecution for IPC offences. The Court found no legal basis to hold that refusal of sanction under Section 19 disabled the trial on the IPC charges.
Conclusion: The appellant remained liable to face prosecution for the IPC offences notwithstanding the outcome under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Final Conclusion: The criminal appeal did not warrant interference, and the prosecution for the IPC offences was permitted to proceed in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is attracted only where the accused is a public servant not removable except with governmental sanction, and sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is distinct from, and does not substitute for, the sanction inquiry applicable to IPC offences.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
