Karnataka High Court

Mr A Krishanamurthy vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 March, 2022

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                             1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                            BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.8854 OF 2021

                             C/W.

              CRIMINAL   PETITION   No.8862   OF   2021
              CRIMINAL   PETITION   No.8876   OF   2021
              CRIMINAL   PETITION   No.8878   OF   2021
              CRIMINAL   PETITION   No.8905   OF   2021

IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.8854 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

MR.A.KRISHANAMURTHY
S/O LATE ANJANAPPA M.,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.302,
2ND A MAIN,
MUNESHWARA NILAYA,
MUTHYALANAGAR,
MES ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 054.
                                                          ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI NITIN R., ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING))

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       BY SHESHADRIPURAM POLICE STATION,
       REPRESENTED BY
       STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                              2



     HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
     BENGALURU - 560 009.

2.   MR.RAVIKUMAR
     POLICE INSPECTOR,
     VIGILANCE AND STF,
     BDA HEAD OFFICE,
     5TH MAIN ROAD,
     KUMARAPARK WEST,
     GUTTAHALLI,
     BENGALURU - 560 020.
                                               ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT.YASHODHA K.P., HCGP FOR R1 (PHYSICAL HEARING);
    SRI AKSHAY GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (PHYSICAL
    HEARING))


       THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN
C.C.NO.5017/2021 IN CR.NO.89/2020 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
120B, 406, 409, 417, 463, 465, 467, 470, 420, 471, 473, 472, 474,
475, 476 R/W 511 OF IPC REGISTERED BY SHESHADRIPURAM
P.S., BENGALURU CITY PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE IV
A.C.M.M., BENGALURU CITY, BENGALURU AND ALL CONSEQUENT
PROCEEDINGS.

IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.8862 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

MR. K.N. RAVIKUMAR
S/O NARAYANAPPA K.N.,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
RESIDING AT WARD NO.1,
NES BADAVANE,
MAGADI TOWN,
MAGADI, RAMANAGAR - 562 120.
                                                  ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI NITIN R., ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING))
                               3




AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       BY SHESHADRIPURAM POLICE STATION,
       REPRESENTED BY
       STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
       HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
       BENGALURU - 560 009.

2.     MR.RAVIKUMAR
       POLICE INSPECTOR,
       VIGILANCE AND STF,
       BDA HEAD OFFICE,
       5TH MAIN ROAD,
       KUMARAPARK WEST,
       GUTTAHALLI,
       BENGALURU - 560 020.
                                               ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT.YASHODHA K.P., HCGP FOR R1 (PHYSICAL HEARING);
    SRI AKSHAY GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (PHYSICAL
    HEARING))


      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN
C.C.NO.5017/2021 IN CR.NO.89/2020 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
120B, 406, 409, 417, 463, 465, 467, 470, 420, 471, 473, 472, 474,
475, 476 R/W 511 OF IPC REGISTERED BY SHESHADRIPURAM
P.S., BENGALURU CITY PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE IV
A.C.M.M., BENGALURU, BENGALURU AND ALL CONSEQUENT
PROCEEDINGS.

IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.8876 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

MR.C.SRINIVAS
S/O LATE CHENNAIAH
                               4



AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.362, 2ND CROSS,
7TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 041.
                                                  ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI NITIN R., ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING))

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       BY SHESHADRIPURAM POLICE STATION,
       REPRESENTED BY
       STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
       HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
       BENGALURU - 560 009.

2.     MR.RAVIKUMAR
       POLICE INSPECTOR,
       VIGILANCE AND STF,
       BDA HEAD OFFICE,
       5TH MAIN ROAD,
       KUMARAPARK WEST,
       GUTTAHALLI,
       BENGALURU - 560 020.
                                               ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT.YASHODHA K.P., HCGP FOR R1 (PHYSICAL HEARING);
    SRI AKSHAY GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (PHYSICAL
    HEARING))


       THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN
C.C.NO.5017/2021 IN CR.NO.89/2020 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
120B, 406, 409, 417, 463, 465, 467, 470, 420, 471, 473, 472, 474,
475, 476 R/W 511 OF IPC REGISTERED BY SHESHADRIPURAM
P.S., BENGALURU CITY PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE IV
A.C.M.M., BENGALURU, BENGALURU AND ALL CONSEQUENT
PROCEEDINGS.
                               5




IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.8878 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

MR.SHABBEER AHMED
S/O LATE M.VAZEER AHMED,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.15/2,
NEW NO.2, 3RD CROSS,
2ND MAIN, NEAR R.T.NAGAR,
POLICE STATION, DINNUR,
BENGALURU - 560 032.
                                                 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI NITIN R., ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING))

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       BY SHESHADRIPURAM POLICE STATION,
       REPRESENTED BY
       STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
       HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
       BENGALURU - 560 009.

2.     MR.RAVIKUMAR
       POLICE INSPECTOR,
       VIGILANCE AND STF,
       BDA HEAD OFFICE,
       5TH MAIN ROAD,
       KUMARAPARK WEST,
       GUTTAHALLI,
       BENGALURU - 560 020.
                                            ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT.YASHODHA K.P., HCGP FOR R1 (PHYSICAL HEARING);
    SRI AKSHAY GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (PHYSICAL
    HEARING))
                              6



     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN
C.C.NO.5017/2021 IN CR.NO.89/2020 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
120B, 406, 409, 417, 463, 465, 467, 420, 471, 473, 472, 474, 475,
476 R/W 511 OF IPC REGISTERED BY SHESHADRIPURAM P.S.,
BENGALURU CITY PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE IV
A.C.M.M., BENGALURU CITY, BENGALURU AND ALL CONSEQUENT
PROCEEDINGS.


IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.8905 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

MR. FAROOQE AZAM M.A.,
S/O ANWAR HUSSAIN M.A.,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.202,
2ND FLOOR, L M ENCLAVE,
SULTANPALYA MAIN ROAD,
SULTANPALYA, NEAR BBMP PARK,
R.T.NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 032.
                                                  ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI NITIN R., ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING))

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       BY SHESHADRIPURAM POLICE STATION,
       REPRESENTED BY
       STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
       HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
       BENGALURU - 560 009.

2.     MR.RAVIKUMAR
       POLICE INSPECTOR,
       VIGILANCE AND STF,
       BDA HEAD OFFICE,
       5TH MAIN ROAD,
       KUMARAPARK WEST,
                              7



     GUTTAHALLI,
     BENGALURU - 560 020.
                                               ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT.YASHODHA K.P., HCGP FOR R1 (PHYSICAL HEARING);
    SRI AKSHAY GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (PHYSICAL
    HEARING))

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN
C.C.NO.5017/2021 IN CR.NO.89/2020 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
120B, 406, 409, 417, 463, 465, 467, 470, 420, 471, 473, 472, 474,
475, 476 R/W 511 OF IPC REGISTERED BY SHESHADRIPURAM
P.S., BENGALURU CITY PENDING ON THE FILE OF IV A.C.M.M.,
BENGALURU AND ALL CONSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS.

     THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                            ORDER

The petitioners in all these cases are Officers of the

Bengaluru Development Authority, working in the cadre of

Assistant Executive Engineer and Assistant Engineer.

2. All the petitioners call in question proceedings in

C.C.No.5017/2021, pending on the file of IV Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable

under Sections 120B, 406, 409, 417, 463, 465, 467, 470, 420,

471, 473, 472, 474, 475, 476 r/w. 511 of the IPC. Petitioners

are accused Nos.16, 13, 23, 11 and 15 respectively.

3. Heard Sri Nitin R., learned counsel for the petitioners,

Smt. K.P. Yashoda, learned High Court Government Pleader for

respondent No.1 and Sri Akshay Gowda, learned counsel for

respondent No.2.

4. Brief facts as projected by the prosecution, are as

follows:

The petitioners who are the Officers of the Bengaluru

Development Authority (for short 'the BDA') are working in the

cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer and the Assistant

Engineer, are entrusted with the work of preparation of the

Correct Dimension Report (hereinafter referred to as 'CDR' for

short). A complaint is registered by respondent No.2 alleging

that the Officials of the BDA have joined hands with one Indar

Kumar - accused No.2 in creating certain documents for the

purpose of fictitious allotment of sites coming under the

precincts of the BDA. It transpires that, when the office of

accused No.2 was searched, at which point in time, the police

came in possession of certain CDRs' inter alia. Those CDRs'

were the ones prepared by the petitioners, which was at its draft

stage. Therefore, it would be referred to as draft CDRs' prepared

by the petitioners. It is at that stage, those documents were

found in the office of accused No.2. Based upon the said search,

a crime is registered against the petitioners and several others in

crime No.89/2020, for the offences under Sections 406, 409,

467, 470, 420, 471, 473, 472, 474, 475 and 476 of IPC.

5. After the registration of the aforesaid crime,

investigation is conducted and final report / charge sheet is filed

by the police. In the interregnum, a communication by the Law

Officer is sent to the Investigating Officer that the sanction to

proceed further against the petitioners who are accused Nos.16,

13, 23, 11 and 15, is imperative and seeks information with

regard to such sanction. The communication is sent on

02.03.2021, which is long before filing of the final report /

charge sheet by the police before the Court, which comes about

only on 04.12.2021. Therefore, it is an admitted fact that the

proceedings are sought to be proceeded without at the outset a

sanction for such proceedings or trial as obtaining under Section

197 of Cr.P.C. It is at that stage, the petitioners have knocked

the doors of this Court in the present petitions.

6. Sri Nitin R., learned counsel for the petitioners would

submit that non-according of sanction is an admitted fact, but

even on the merit of the matter, there is no warrant to proceed

further against the petitioners, even if sanction is accorded by

the competent authority. Learned counsel would submit that

the statement of witnesses, if looked into, there is no whisper

about the names of the petitioners, in all 212 statements that

are recorded of the witnesses and if the names of the petitioners

figure nowhere, the conduct of the trial or conduct of any

proceedings against the petitioners would become an abuse of

the process of law. He would submit that, in the logical end if

the petitioners are going to be acquitted in the trial for want of

evidence, that would be an appropriate case for quashment of

the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

7. On the other hand, Sri Akshay Gowda, learned counsel

for respondent No.2 would vehemently refute the submissions

and contend that the allegations against these petitioners are

clearly found in the summary of the charge sheet filed by the

police and it is a matter of trial that the petitioners will have to

come out clean, if it is on the merit of the matter. So far grant of

sanction is concerned, learned counsel would also submit that

in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the

case of INDIARA DEVI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND

ANOTHER reported in (2021) 8 SCC 768, sanction for

prosecuting a public servant even if the offence under the

provisions of Indian Penal Code, 1860, is imperative. Therefore,

he would submit that if the matter is being considered for want

of sanction, the objections that he has filed be taken on record

and be considered and if the matter is to be taken up on its

merit, he would submit that it is a mater of trail.

8. Smt. K.P.Yashoda, learned High Court Government

Pleader would also toe the lines of the learned counsel for

respondent No.2 to contend that it is a matter of trial for the

petitioners to come out clean and accepts the submission with

regard to want of sanction.

9. In reply to the submission of the learned counsel for

respondent No.2, learned counsel for the petitioners would

submit that what is found in the summary of the charge sheet is

only what the Investigating Officer has reported. Admittedly,

there is no statement recorded by any of the witnesses against

the petitioners.

10. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties

and perused the material on record.

11. The afore-narrated facts being not in dispute, are not

reiterated. The issue that fall for consideration is, whether

further proceedings could go on against the petitioners, who are

admittedly Officers of the BDA, who are alleged of preparation of

draft CDRs' on which the aforesaid offences are levelled against

the petitioners?

12. Section 197 of Cr.P.C. reads as follows:

"197. Prosecution of Judges and public servants:

(1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government 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, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction-

(a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government;

(b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Government: 1 Provided that where the alleged offence was committed by a person referred to in clause (b) during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force in a State, clause (b) will apply as if for the expression" State Government" occurring therein, the expression" Central Government" were substituted.

(2) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Union while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.

(3) The State Government may, by notification, direct that the provisions of sub- section (2) shall apply to such class or category of the members of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order as may be specified therein, wherever they may be serving, and thereupon the provisions of that sub- section will apply as if for the expression" Central Government" occurring therein, the expression" State Government" were substituted.

(3A) 1 Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (3), no court shall take cognizance of any offence, alleged to have been committed by any member of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order in a State while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force therein, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.

(3B) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Code or any other law, it is hereby declared that any sanction accorded by the State Government or any cognizance taken by a court upon such sanction, during the period commencing on the 20th day of August, 1991 and ending with the date immediately preceding the date on which the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1991 , receives the assent of the President, with respect to an offence alleged to have been committed during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of

the Constitution was in force in the State, shall be invalid and it shall be competent for the Central Government in such matter to accord sanction and for the court to take cognizance thereon.]

(4) The Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, may determine the person by whom, the manner in which, and the offence or offences for which, the prosecution of such Judge, Magis- trate or public servant is to be conducted, and may specify the Court before which the trial is to be held."

(Emphasis supplied)

In the light of the afore-extracted provision, a sanction for

prosecution for the offences that are made punishable under the

provisions of Indian Penal Code, 1860, is imperative, under

Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. The Apex Court in the case of INDIRA

DEVI (supra), has held as follows:

"2. Megharam is alleged to have tampered with and fabricated the agreement with the intention to defraud. This was allegedly done in collusion with the then executive officer of the Municipality, one Surender Kumar Mathur and "the concerned clerk and others", by enlarging the dimensions of the plot which have been sold to him with the intention to grab the land and house occupied by the complainant and her husband. The Khasra number is also alleged to have been changed from 1179/03 to 1143/04. This fact is stated to have come to the notice of the complainant only when they were served with a court notice when they were in physical possession of the plot

with the house and the shop. Her husband is stated to have gone to Jaipur for treatment of cancer.

The accused persons are, thus, alleged to have committed the offences of fraudulently making a scheduled caste women, her cancer diagnosed husband and other family members homeless. It may be noted that Respondent No.2 herein, Yogesh Acharya was not named in the FIR but, apparently, he is stated to be "the concerned clerk".

3. In pursuance of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed and charges were framed vide order dated 10.04.2012 against Megharam. Once again Respondent No.2 was not named in the charge sheet but a reference was made to Megharam acting in collusion with "co-accused persons".

4. The records placed before us do not reflect how Respondent No.2 was exactly roped in, but suffice to say, Respondent No.2 moved an application under Section 197 of the CrPC before the trial court stating that he was a public servant and what he did in respect of allotment of lease, that was executed in favour of Megharam, was done during the course of his official duty and thus he was entitled to protection under the aforementioned provision. He also sought to assail the charge sheet as the same had been filed without obtaining sanction of the competent authority under Section197 of the CrPC.

5. The trial court dismissed the application vide order dated 10.08.2017, while noticing that Respondent No.2 had not been mentioned in the FIR. It was opined that it was the duty of Respondent No.2 to bring irregularities to the knowledge of the competent officers, i.e. Megharam had mentioned the wrong Khasra number in the lease but no documents

of ownership of the land were produced. The trial court was of the view that had the discrepancies been brought to the knowledge of the competent officers by Respondent No.2, the disputed lease would not have been issued. The result of the failure to do so caused the forged lease to be prepared. Respondent No.2 had also drafted the disputed lease in which he failed to mention necessary details. It was, thus, opined that Respondent No.2 was liable to be prosecuted against for having committed criminal offence to procure a forged lease. What Respondent No.2 did was held not to be done by the public servant in discharge of his official duty and thus protection under Section 197 of the CrPC would not come to his aid.

6. Respondent No.2 thereafter filed a Crl. Misc. Petition No.3138/2017 under Section 482 of the CrPC before the High Court of Judicature at Jodhpur assailing the said order of the trial court. The High Court, vide impugned order dated 03.10.2017, allowed the petition. It was opined that the case was similar to the one of Devi Dan v. State of Rajasthan (2014 SCC Online Raj 4584). The High Court had opined therein that sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC was required before triggering any prosecution against the Station House Officer for filing/failing to file an FIR and for other criminal acts committed during the discharge of his duties. The complainant, aggrieved by the said judgment, has approached this court by filing a special leave petition. The State has also filed an SLP. Leave was granted in both the matters.

7. The appellant contended before us that the involvement of Respondent No.2 only came to light during investigation. He had failed to bring the irregularities to the knowledge of his

superiors which was instrumental in issuing the forged lease. Thus, he had conspired with his superiors in dishonestly concealing the forgery, and intentionally omitting mentioning the date of the proceedings on the order sheet. Such action of forging documents would not be considered as an act conducted in the course of his official duties and, thus Section 197 of the CrPC would not give protection to Respondent No.2.

8. On the other hand, Respondent No.2 endeavoured to support the impugned judgment of the High Court by emphasising that in FIR only Megharam along with some unnamed officials were mentioned. Surender Kumar Mathur, the Executive Officer of the Nagar Palika, had filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC relating to the same transaction and the High Court had granted him protection under Section 197 of the CrPC vide order dated 22.02.2018. The conduct of putting his initials was held to be an act done in discharge of his duties. Similarly, Sandeep Mathur, a Junior Engineer, who was part of the same transaction, was granted protection by the Sessions Court vide order dated 19.03.2020, once again under the same provision, i.e., Section 197 of the CrPC. Both the orders remained unchallenged by the complainant and the State. Further, it has been argued that Respondent No.2 was simply carrying out his official duty which is apparent from the work allotted to him that pertained to allotment, regularisation, conversion of agricultural land and all kinds of work relating to land and conversion. The application of Megharam was routed through the office, and the proceedings show that the file was initially put up before the Executive Officer, who directed inspection, which was carried out by

the Junior Engineer. Thereafter, file was placed before the Executive Officer again and only then was it signed by the Municipal Commissioner. The two key people involved in the process had already been granted protection and thus Respondent No.2 herein, who was merely a Lower Division Clerk, could not be denied similar protection.

9. The learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgments of this Court in B. Saha & Ors. Vs. M.S. Kochar reported in (1979) 4 SCC 177 and State of Maharashtra Vs. Dr.Budhikota Subbarao (1993) 3 SCC 339, to contend that Section 197 of the CrPC ought to be read in a liberal sense for grant of protection to the public servant with respect to actions, which though constitute an offence, are "directly and reasonably" connected with their official duties.

10. We have given our thought to the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. Section 197 of the CrPC seeks to protect an officer from unnecessary harassment, who is accused of an offence committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties and, thus, prohibits the court from taking cognisance of such offence except with the previous sanction of the competent authority. Public servants have been treated as a special category in order to protect them from malicious or vexatious prosecution. At the same time, the shield cannot protect corrupt officers and the provisions must be construed in such a manner as to advance the cause of honesty, justice and good governance. [See Subramanian Swamy Vs. Manmohan Singh4]. The alleged indulgence of the

officers in cheating, fabrication of records or misappropriation cannot be said to be in discharge of their official duty. However, such sanction is necessary if the offence alleged against the public servant is committed by him "while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty" and in order to find out whether the alleged offence is committed "while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty", the yardstick to be followed is to form a prima facie view whether the act of omission for which the accused was charged had a reasonable connection with the discharge of his duties. [See State of Maharashtra Vs. Dr. Budhikota Subbarao reported in (1993) 3 SCC 339. The real question, therefore, is whether the act committed is directly concerned with the official duty.

11. We have to apply the aforesaid test to the facts of the present case. In that behalf, the factum of Respondent No.2 not being named in the FIR is not of much significance as the alleged role came to light later on. However, what is of significance is the role assigned to him in the alleged infraction, i.e. conspiring with his superiors. What emerges there from is that insofar as the processing of the papers was concerned, Surendra Kumar Mathur, the Executive Officer, had put his initials to the relevant papers which was held in discharge of his official duties. Not only that, Sandeep Mathur, who was part of the alleged transaction, was also similarly granted protection. The work which was assigned to Respondent No.2 pertained to the subject matter of allotment, regularisation, conversion of agricultural land and fell within his

domain of work. In the processing of application of Megharam, the file was initially put up to the Executive Officer who directed the inspection and the inspection was carried out by the Junior Engineer and only thereafter the Municipal Commissioner signed the file. The result is that the superior officers, who have dealt with the file, have been granted protection while the clerk, who did the paper work, i.e. Respondent No.2, has been denied similar protection by the trial court even though the allegation is of really conspiring with his superior officers. Neither the State nor the complainant appealed against the protection granted under Section 197 of the CrPC qua these two other officers.

12. We are, thus, not able to appreciate why a similar protection ought not to be granted to Respondent No.2 as was done in the case of the other two officials by the Trial Court and High Court respectively. The sanction from competent authority would be required to take cognisance and no sanction had been obtained in respect of any of the officers. It is in view thereof that in respect of the other two officers, the proceedings were quashed and that is what the High Court has directed in the present case as well.

13. In view of the aforesaid, the appeals are dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs."

(Emphasis supplied)

In the light of the afore-extracted judgment, which

delineates the law of according sanction, even for the offence

punishable under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and admittedly,

in the case at hand, sanction not being accorded, further

proceedings against the petitioners cannot be permitted to

continue.

13. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would admit that

though the communication is sent on 02.03.2021, the sanction

is yet to be accorded by the competent authority. Therefore, the

further proceedings on the merit of the matter, at this juncture,