M. BALASUBRAMANIAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revision petitions are preferred against the order dismissing the discharge petition filed by the petitioner u/s 239 Cr.P.C . in Crl. M.P. Nos.1095 and 1427 of 2014 and 1811 of 2013 in C.C. Nos.14, 15 and 16 of 2012, pending on the file of XI Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai, dated 05.11.2019.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that while working as Senior Branch Manager in Syndicate Bank, he was deputed as Managing Director in REPCO Bank during the year 1987 and the service of the petitioner was extended periodically every 3 years. REPCO Bank extended its service base by starting REPCO Home in which 7 persons were appointed and the petitioner was appointed as Managing Director, while the other persons were appointed as Directors. The remuneration of the petitioner was fixed as per the Board Resolution. The petitioner, while at the time of retiring from the service of the bank, was receiving an annual remuneration of Rs.20,00,000/- from REPCO Home and Rs.7,41,000/- as annual remuneration from REPCO Bank. Three months after his retirement, the respondent, based on certain information, filed three cases before the XI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in C.C.Nos. 14, 15 and 16 of 2002 against the petitioner alleging misuse of his official position while granting loans unauthorizedly and, thereby, misappropriated a sum of Rs.89,69,000/-( Rupees Eighty Nine Lakhs and sixty nine thousand only) and caused huge loss to the Bank. After investigation, Hence, the respondent filed charge sheet against the petitioner u/s 120 (B) r/w 420 IPC and Sec 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988. Since, the petitions filed by the petitioner before the trial court for his discharge proved unsuccessful, the present petitions have been filed assailing the said order.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, being a public servant was not removed from service till he retired from the services of the bank. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there were 7 persons, who were Members of the Board and Directors, including the petitioner. Therefore, for waiver of any loan, the consent of all the members of the Board was necessary. However, the petitioner along with three other persons alone have been mulcted with the conspiracy, which shows the lacunae in the prosecution. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner having held the post of Managing Director, for prosecuting him, sanction as contemplated u/s 197 Cr.P.C. is mandatory. The acts of the petitioner having been performed in the discharge of his official duty, he cannot be fastened with criminal liability alleging that he acted with mala fide intention. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the act of the petitioner being part of the discharge of his official duties, prior sanction is essential and in the absence of sanction, the prosecution cannot be proceeded with. In support of the said contention, reliance was placed on the decision in Balakrishnan Pillai Vs. State of Kerala & Anr. (1996 (1) SCC 478), wherein the Apex Court considered the scope and application of Section 197 Cr.P.C and held as under :-