Sri M B Angadi Vs the State by Circle Police Inspector

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:845 CRL.P No. 100161 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100161 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI. M.B.ANGADI AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. RETD, RANGE FOREST OFFICER, R/O. ILKAL, TQ. HUNGUND, DIST. BAGALKOT-587125.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S. BADAWADAGI, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE STATE BY CIRCLE POLICE INSPECTOR SIRUGUPPA POLICE STATION, SIRUGUPPA, NOW REP. BY SPP,

¶11

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH AT DHARWAD-580011.

¶12

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR B K Location: HIGH MAHENDRAKUMAR COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.22 15:00:10 +0530

¶13

SHRI. MALLIKARJUN S/O. P. BORALE AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL, R/O. RFO (S.F.RANGE FOREST OFFICE, SHIRUGUPPA TOWN, DIST. BALLARI-583201, R/BY SPP, HCK, DHARWAD.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S. 528 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 31.07.2024 PASSED BY THE COURT OF I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI IN CRL.REV. PETITION NO. 127/2019 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER DATED 31.12.2018 PASSED BY THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDE AND JMFC SIRUGUPPA FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 406, 409, 420 OF IPC MARKED AT ANNEXURE A AND B RESPECTIVELY.

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC-D:845 CRL.P No. 100161 of 2025

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

The petitioner has been charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

¶23

The case of the prosecution is that, when the petitioner-accused was working as a Range Forest Officer in the office of the Range Forest Office, Siraguppa Taluk, received a sum of Rs.11 Lakhs from 23–Grama Panchayaths for development of the forest in the said Taluk, for the year 2006-2007. After completion of the work, he has not produced vouchers and other relevant documents regarding the expenditure. Despite the direction of the higher officer to produce internal audit report, the petitioner-accused has not produced any vouchers or internal audit report.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State.

¶25

Admittedly, the petitioner has allegedly misappropriated the money during the discharge of his official duties as a Range Forest Officer. The petitioner retired from the service on 31.03.2011 and the cognizance of the offence was taken on 19.7.2012. The petitioner filed an application for discharge under Section 239 of Cr.P.C, seeking discharge primarily on the

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:845 CRL.P No. 100161 of 2025

¶27

ground that, before taking cognizance, the investigating officer had not taken sanction to prosecute as stated under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate allowed the application filed by the petitioner, which prompted the respondent No.1 to file the Crl.revision petition before the learned District and Sessions Judge. The Session Court by an impugned order set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate and dismissed the application filed by the petitioner, which prompted the petitioner to approach this Court.

¶28

The Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Labh Singh (2014) 16 SCC 807 ruled that for offenses punishable under the Penal Code, the High Court was correct in setting aside the order of the Special Judge. Unlike Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is available to the concerned public servant even after retirement.

¶29

Additionally, the Apex Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar Mishra vs. State of Bihar and Others (2006) 1 SCC 557, with reference to the 41st report of the Law Commission, ruled that the sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. is required even for retired public servants. Therefore, the contention of the learned HCGP that the sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. is not a prerequisite for cognizance of the offenses alleged against a public servant who retired before the cognizance was taken is not acceptable.

¶30

4 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC-D:845 CRL.P No. 100161 of 2025

¶32

Consequently, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

i) The Criminal petition is allowed;

¶35

ii) The impugned order dated 31.07.2024, passed by the I Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Ballari is hereby quashed, and order dated 31.12.2018 in C.C.No.697/2012, on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC Siraguppa, insofar it relates to the petitioner herein is hereby confirmed.

¶36

iii) It is needless to state that the respondent No.1 is at liberty to obtain necessary sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C from the Competent Authority and thereafter to take appropriate action in accordance with law.

¶37

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶38

HR Ct:vh List No.: 2 Sl No.: 34

Sri M B Angadi v. the State by Circle Police Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M B Angadi v. the State by Circle Police Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Perk Inn International Ltd. Vs Karnataka Industrial Areas Developm

Fareeda Begum and Ors. Vs the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Devaraj Alias Devendrappa S/O Shivanand Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Sai Mahalakshmi Stone Crusher, Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Shivaraj S/O Basavaraj Madiwalar Vs the State of Karnataka

Naveen Ganapatisa Jitoori Vs the State of Karnataka