A. SREENIVASA REDDY versus RAKESH SHARMA AND ANR.

A. SREENIVASA REDDY versus RAKESH SHARMA AND ANR.

Section 197 CrPC did not apply because the appellant, an Assistant General Manager of a nationalised bank, did not hold a post removable only by or with the sanction of the Central or State Government; sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act, 1988 is distinct from sanction under Section 197 CrPC and, although the appellant was discharged of offences under the PC Act for want of sanction, prosecution for the IPC offences could lawfully continue in accordance with law.

Parties
Appellant: A. Sreenivasa Reddy; Respondent: Rakesh Sharma
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
08 August 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment Rejecting Petition to Quash Criminal Proceedings
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sanction for Prosecution, Section 197 Cr PC, Section 19 PC Act, Public Servant, Nexus With Official Duty, Quashing of Criminal Proceedings
Criminal Procedure Criminal Law Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Banking Regulation Sanction for Prosecution Section 197 Cr PC Section 19 PC Act Public Servant +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A. Sreenivasa Reddy

Appellant

Rakesh Sharma

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment Rejecting Petition to Quash Criminal Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an Assistant General Manager of a nationalised bank is removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government so as to attract Section 197 CrPC
  2. 2 Whether prosecution can proceed for offences under the IPC despite sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act, 1988 being declined

Ratio Decidendi

Section 197 CrPC did not apply because the appellant, an Assistant General Manager of a nationalised bank, did not hold a post removable only by or with the sanction of the Central or State Government; sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act, 1988 is distinct from sanction under Section 197 CrPC and, although the appellant was discharged of offences under the PC Act for want of sanction, prosecution for the IPC offences could lawfully continue in accordance with law.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed