Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.) Leave granted in Special Leave Petitions.
(2.) Challenge in all these appeals is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court in each case dismissing the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code'). Stand of the appellant is that there was no sanction for prosecution as contemplated under law.
(3.) Background facts in a nutshell are as follows : The respondent/complainant on credible information registered a case against the appellant and others for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') read with Section 420, IPC and Sections 11, 12 and 13(2) read with section 13(1)((d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the 'PC Act'). On the basis of the First Information Report when investigation proceeded it disclosed the commission of the offences, as aforementioned, resulting in filing of a final report followed by taking cognizance of the case by the court concerned. The respective stands of the parties before the High Court were as follows : The appellant filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings since in the absence of any sanction under Section 197(l)(a) of the Code, the cognizance taken by the Court is illegal and invalid since he is a public servant. It is the further case of the appellant that though he was the Chairman and Managing Director of the Company with overall control, the sanction of credit facility was not directly connected with him and in this view he should be absolved from all the charges. It was further submitted that there is no allegation that the appellant as public servant obtained pecuniary advantage while holding office as public servant and in this view the charges against him are untenable. On the above basis, it was claimed that proceedings against him should be quashed. The respondent-State opposed the application contending that sanction to prosecute the appellant is not necessary under the facts and circumstances of the case and the same also could be decided even at the time of the trial. The final report reads : "That accused M. Gopalakrishnan (A1) while functioning as the Executive Director and Chairman and Managing Director, Indian Bank connived to commit criminal misconduct by public servants by corrupt or illegal means or by abuse of their official position as public servants or they while holding office as public servants without any public interest obtained for themselves or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by recommending/ sanctioning credit limits without proper appraisal, ignoring banking norms, RBI guidelines, exceeding delegated powers, violating Board directions despite glaring adverse features in the conduct of the account, without ensuring proper end use of funds and safeguarding the interest of the Bank by A1 to A4 the public servants, viz. M. Gopalakrishnan (A1) and N. Kumaraswamy (A2) named above to accept or obtain for themselves or for their close relatives viz. A18 to A20 named above valuable thing without consideration from persons whom they knew to have been concerned in business transacted by them or having any connection with the official functions of themselves or from any person whom they knew to be interested in or related to the person so concerned and the accused R. Ramesh (A18), T.S. Jayakumar (A19) and Kala Kumaraswamy (A20) to abet the aforesaid offences of public servants obtaining valuable thing without consideration from persons concerned in business transaction by them by accepting Rs. 15 lacs and Rs. 5 lacs in demand drafts and an Ambassador Nova Car, respectively. Thus the accused A1 to A20 committed offence punishable under Section 120-B read with Section 420, IPC and Sections 11, 12, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act. ;