Remanded

Dr B M Mohan v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Dec 2021CRL.P/988/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Criminal Petition filed by Dr. B.M. Mohan, a retired Director of Forensic Science Laboratory, seeking quashing of proceedings for IPC offences. The High Court held that since the petitioner was a public servant at the time of investigation (or charge sheet), valid sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is mandatory even for a retired employee. The matter was remanded to the State Government to obtai

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition disposed of; matter remitted to State Government for grant of sanction under S. 197 Cr.P.C. within three months; trial court restrained from further proceedings until valid sanction

Dr B M Mohan Vs the State of Karnataka — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.988/2018

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

DR. B. M. MOHAN AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O LATE MUTHAIAH NO.8 BSR MANTHRALAYA APARTMENT COMPLEX IIND SECTOR, 19TH MAIN 26TH CROSS, HSR LAYOUT BANGALORE - 560 102

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

[BY SRI M.T. NANAIAH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRABHUGOUD B. TUMBIGI, ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING)]

¶11

AND

¶12

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MADIWAL POLICE BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001

¶13

2 . M. L. PURUSHOTHAM INSPECTOR OF POLICE MADIWALA POLICE STATION

¶14

¶15

MADIWALA BENGALURU - 560 068

¶16

... RESPONDENTS

¶17

[BY SRI. R.D. RENUKARADHYA, HCGP FOR R1 (PHYSICAL HEARING) R2 - SERVED]

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF THE CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.6925/2016 REGISTERED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 166, 218 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF III ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings pending in C.C.No.6925/2016 before the III Additional C.M.M., Bangalore for offences punishable under Sections 166 and 218 of the IPC.

¶22

Heard Sri. M.T. Naniah, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. R.D. Renukaradhya, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 and have perused the material on record.

¶23

¶24

Brief facts leading to the filing of present writ

¶25

petition, as borne out from the pleadings are as follows:

¶26

The petitioner at the relevant point in time was working as a Director of the Forensic Science Laboratories (hereinafter referred to as 'FSL' for short). It transpires that certain documents pertaining to a criminal case pending in Crime No.12/2007 for offences punishable under Sections 380, 406, 420, 468, 471, 120B of IPC against several persons. The documents which had been investigated into those offences by the jurisdictional police had been sent to the FSL. The petitioner is the Director and Head of the laboratory. An application is filed by one Kishan under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking those documents that were transmitted by the Investigating Officer before the FSL. The documents which were a part of investigation were released by the FSL by the Assistant Director, to which, the petitioner had affixed his signature.

¶27

¶28

Learned Senior counsel appearing for the

¶29

petitioner would submit that the petitioner is not aware of the contents of the application made and had affixed his signature in the normal course. Be that as it may.

¶30

The cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 166 and 218 of the IPC is taken by the Criminal Court without at the outset, the prosecution producing a valid sanction for such prosecution by the competent authority. As at the time, when the investigation was ordered, the petitioner was still a public servant and when the charge sheet is filed in the year 2016, the petitioner had ceased to be a Government Servant on account of his attaining the age of superannuation.

¶31

If the petitioner were to be a public servant, sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. was mandatory to be obtained. Even the petitioner would be retired employee, at the time, when the charge sheet is

¶32

¶33

filed, sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. is a mandatory prerequisite for the proceedings of the trial against the petitioner. It is an admitted fact that in the case at hand there is no sanction accorded by the competent authority to prosecute the petitioner. The law in this regard is no longer res integra in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF PUNJAB v. LABH SINGH¹ wherein it is held as follows:

¶34

“9. In the present case the public servants in question had retired on 13-12-1999 and 30-4-2000. The sanction to prosecute them was rejected subsequent to their retirement i.e. first on 13-9-2000 and later on 24-9-2003. The public servants having retired from service there was no occasion to consider grant of sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act. The law on the point is quite clear 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 S.A. Venkataraman v. State [S.A. Venkataraman v. State, AIR 1958 SC 107: 1958 Cri LJ 254: 1958 SCR 1040] while construing Section 6(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 which provision is in pari materia with Section 19(1) of the PC Act, this Court held that no sanction was necessary in the case of a person

¶35

1 (2014) 16 SCC 807

¶36

¶37

who had ceased to be the public servant at the time the court was asked to take cognizance. The view taken in S.A. Venkataraman [S.A. Venkataraman v. State, AIR 1958 SC 107: 1958 Cri LJ 254: 1958 SCR 1040] was adopted by this Court in C.R. Bansi v. State of Maharashtra [C.R. Bansi v. State of Maharashtra, (1970) 3 SCC 537: 1971 SCC (Cri) 143] and in Kalicharan Mahapatra v. State of Orissa [Kalicharan Mahapatra v. State of Orissa, (1998) 6 SCC 411: 1998 SCC (Cri) 1455] and by the Constitution Bench of this Court in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India [K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 655: 1991 SCC (Cri) 734] . The High Court was not therefore justified in setting aside the order passed by the Special Judge insofar as charge under the PC Act was concerned.

¶38

10. However as regards charges for the offences punishable under the Penal Code, the High Court was absolutely right in setting aside the order of the Special Judge. Unlike Section 19 of the PC Act, the protection under Section 197 CrPC is available to the public servant concerned even after retirement. Therefore, if the matter was considered by the sanctioning authority and the sanction to prosecute was rejected first on 13-9-2000 and secondly on 24-9-2003, the Court could not have taken cognizance insofar as the offences punishable under the Penal Code are concerned. As laid down by this Court in State of H.P. v. Nishant Sareen [State of H.P. v. Nishant Sareen, (2010) 14 SCC 527: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 836] , the recourse in

¶39

¶40

such cases is either to challenge the order of the sanctioning authority or to approach it again if there is any fresh material.”

¶41

(emphasis supplied)

¶42

In the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment, the proceedings against the petitioner notwithstanding the fact that he is a retired employee can proceed only after a valid sanction is accorded and placed before the Court hearing the case in C.C.No.6925/2016.

¶43

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

i. Criminal petition stands disposed.

¶46

ii. The matter is remitted to the hands of the State Government to pass appropriate orders in terms of grant of sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C.

¶47

iii. The trial Court is restrained from proceeding any further in the trial against the petitioner,

¶48

¶49

till a valid sanction is produced by the prosecuting agency.

¶50

iv. The state Government shall take necessary action and pass appropriate orders under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

SJK

Dr B M Mohan v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr B M Mohan v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gowramma Vs Adhyaksha

Sri Vigneshwaran N Vs the Commissioner

Bharath Jagannathan Vs State of Karnataka

Satish R Shet Vs State of Karnataka by

S R Patalappa Vs the State by

Smt Kursheed Unnisa Vs the State of Karnataka