STATE Vs. RAVINDRA SINGH NEGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) The application is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the order made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji in Criminal Revision No.46/2010. This revision was filed by the present respondent against the order of learned JMFC, Mapusa by which charge came to be framed against respondent for offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent was working as a Branch Manager in Mapusa Branch of State Bank of Patiala at relevant time. There is an allegation against him that in that capacity he misappropriated amount of the bank and committed offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has held that the respondent needs to be treated as a public servant for the purpose of Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as it is a Nationalised branch. It is further held that unless there is sanction as required under the said section, cognizance cannot be taken and further charge cannot be framed. Making such observations, the order of charge is set aside by learned Additional Sessions Judge. On the merits of the case, the Sessions Judge has observed that there was material for framing charge. Both the sides are heard.

(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor for the applicant placed reliance on the case of K. Ch. Prasad V/s. Smt. J. Vanalatha Devi and Ors., 1987 AIR(SC) 722. The learned Public Prosecutor took this Court to paragraph nos.4,6 & 7. The Apex Court has discussed Section 197 in relation to employee of a National Bank. The Apex Court has distinguished such employee by holding that such employee is not removable by Government and so the provisions of Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code are not attracted. There cannot be any dispute over this proposition. The facts of the present case are similar. Thus, the learned Sessions Judge has committed error in making the order in favour of the respondent.