Summary
The Court reversed discharge of a retired bank officer prosecuted for alleged conspiracy, cheating, forgery and corruption in loan transactions. Applying the sanction law governing this prosecution, retirement before cognizance removed the requirement under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Section 197 CrPC protected acts reasonably connected with official duty, not use of office as a cloak for unlawful gain. The trial court’s refusal of discharge was restored, with the merits expressly left open.
Issues
- Whether absence of prosecution sanction justified discharge of the retired bank officer.
- Whether allegations of deliberate participation in fraudulent loan transactions could be treated as administrative lapses at the charge stage.
Held
- Under the sanction law applied to this prosecution, no Section 19 sanction was necessary where the public servant had retired before cognizance. The High Court could not extend that statutory protection merely because the alleged acts occurred during service. (¶¶ 9, 10)
- Section 197 protection required a reasonable connection with discharge or purported discharge of official duty. Using office as a cloak for unlawful gain did not attract it. Where the connection required evidence, the question could also arise at a later stage. (¶¶ 11, 12)
- N.K. Ganguly concerned its own allegations and factual context. A decision after a full trial distinguishing administrative lapses from criminal intent did not establish a ground for discharge at this stage. (¶¶ 13, 14)
- The discharge application was rejected and the trial court’s order restored. Discussion of allegations was confined to sanction and expressed no view on merits, which required independent consideration. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside, trial court order restored and discharge application dismissed. Respondent No. 1 directed to appear before the Special Court on 11 December 2019, with further proceedings according to law. Merits expressly left open.