IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2008 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 13804 of 2008(R) -------------------------- CC.3/2008 of ENQUIRY COMMR.& SPL.JUDGE,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.V.PADMARAJAN, FORMER MINISTER FOR ELECTRICITY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, RESIDING AT "VASANTH' ANANDAVALLESWARAM, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.DHARMADAN (SR.) SMT.D.P.RENU SRI.PALAKASSERI R.MOHANA KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, VIGILANCE AND HOME AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. SHERISTADAR, ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPL.JUDGE, VILANCE, THRISSUR. 3. DIRECTOR OF VIGILANCE & ANTICORRUPTION,T THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANE & ANTICORRUPTION BUREAU, SPECIAL CELL, ERNAKULAM. 5. SRI.R.NARAYANAN, IAS(RTD) S/O.K.RAMANNY MENON, FORMERLY CHAIRMAN OF KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, K.P.IV/163, KAKKAMOLA,KALLIYYOR PO.TRIVANDRUM. 6. Y.R.MOORTHY,S/O.YEGNESWARAN FORMERLY MEMBER(ELECT)KSEB FLAT NO.6/D COTTON HILL HEIGHTS, TRIVANDRUM. 7. R.SIVADASAN, FORMERLY MEMBER(ACCOUNTS) AND CHAIRMAN,KSEB,S/O.LATE DR.N.RAGHAVAN, C108, PURVASHU APARTMENTS, MAYUR VIHAR, PHASE I, NEW DELHI-91. 8. C.J.BERTRAM NETTO,S/O.M.STEPHEN NETTO, FORMERLY CHIEF ENGINEER(ELEC),T.C.27/374, G.H.ROAD, TRIVANDRUM. 9. DEBASHISH MAZUMDAR,S/O.DR.B.C.MAZHUMDAR, FORMERLY G.M.(INTL MKTG)M/S.ATV PROJECTS INDIA LTD 410,CHIRANJIV TOWERS, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI- 110019(D-8,MIDC,STREET 16,MAROL,ANDHERI(EAST), MUMBAI-400 093,INDIAN COLLABORATORS,SEMT,PIEKLSTIC K,FRANCE B-150,FREEDOM FIGHER ENCLAVE,NEBSARAI,ND 10. S.JANARDHANAN PILLAI,S/O.R.SANKARA PILLAI, FORMERLY MEMBER(CIVIL)KSEB,MEHNA,K-17, KOCHAR ROAD, SASTHAMANGALAM,TRIVANDRUM. 11. M.K.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, GRANT SON OF RAMAN KUNJAN PANICKER, FORMERLY MEMBER(CIVIL) KSEB, H.NO.131,DARSAN NAGAR, PEROORKADA.PO, TRIVANDRUM. 12. G.KRISHNAKUMAR,S/O.N.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR FORMERLY FA & CAI,KSEB, VII/2. MALABAR ROAD, WILLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI. 13. ALFRED HIRIZ, CHAIRMAN, SEMT PIELSTICK, 2-QUAI DE SEINE, BP NO.75, 93202, SAINT DENIS, CEDEX, FRANCE 14. ANDRE OBIS, AREA EXPORT MANAGER OF THE DIESEL POWER PLANT ENGINEERING SEMT PIELSTICK, 2-QUAI DE DEINE, BP NO,75,93202, SAINT DENIS CEDEX, FRANCE. 15. S.E.M.T.PIELSTICK,2-QUAI DE SEINE, BPNO.75, 93202, SAINT DENIS, CEDEX, FRANCE (REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN BOARD OF MANAGEMENT) ADDL. D.G.P. SRI. K.K. RAVEENDRANATH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.N. SUKUMARAN FOR R1 TO 4 SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE FOR R8 SRI.M.F.MOHAMMOD SIYAD FOR R8 SRI.V.AJITH NARAYANAN FOR R5 SRI.P.S.BIJU FOR R7 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/12/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 20817 OF 2008 THE COURT ON 15/12/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF CHARGE SHEET IN C.C. 3 OF 2008 EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF SUMMONS V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P. ( C) Nos. 13804 of 2008 & W.P.(C) No. 20817 of 2008 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated, this the 15th day of December 2008 JUDGMENT INNER SUB - TITLES Title Paragraph Nos. The two Writ Petitions Paras 1 and 2 The advocates who appeard Para 3 The former Power Minister's (A5) stand para 4 Stand of A3 ( Former Chairman of K.S.E.B) para 5 Stand of A1 (Former Chairman of K.S.E.B.) para 6 Stand of the Prosecution para 7 Judicial Evaluation para 8 onwards Historical Background para 9 Delay in investigation - Whether fatal para 10 Prosecution Sanction under Sec. 197 Cr.P.C. para 11 to 13 Absence of sanction under Sec. 188 Cr.P.C. 14 to 20 Territorial jurisdiction of the Thrissur Court Paras 21 and 22 Conclusion last para W.P. ( C) Nos. 13804 of 2008 & W.P.(C) No. 20817 of 2008 -:2:- THE TWO WRIT PETITIONS W.P.(C ) 13804 of 2008 is filed by the 5th accused, C.V. Padmarajan who was the Minister for Electricity and Coir in the State of Kerala for the period from 1991-1995 when the Ministry led by the United Democratic Front ('UDF” for short) was in power in the State of Kerala. The prayer in the said Writ Petition filed on 28-4-2008 is the following:- a) issue a writ of certiorari or other writ or order to quash Ext.P1 charge sheet and Ext. P2 summons and thereby upholding the protections of the petitioner under the provisions of S. 188 and 197 (1) Crl. P.C. b) declare that the Vigilance Court, Thrissur has no jurisdiction and legal authority to proceed with Ext. P1 charge sheet and P2 summons against the petitioner. c) issue a writ of mandamus or other writ or order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 4 to drop the prosecution proceedings now initiated against the petitioner without any sanction from the competent authorities under Sec. 188 and 197 (1) Crl.P.C. (c ) Issue such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of this case. W.P. ( C) Nos. 13804 of 2008 & W.P.(C) No. 20817 of 2008 -:3:- Respondents 1 to 4 in the said Writ Petition are: i) Government of Kerala, represented by the Secretary to the Government, Vigilance and Home Affairs Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram, ii) Sheristadar, Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Vigilance, Thrissur iii) Director of Vigilance & Anti corruption, Thiruvananthapuram iv) Superintendent of Police, Vigilance & Anti corruption Bureau, Special Cell, Ernakulam Subsequently, on 24-6-2008 the petitioner filed I.A. No. 8028 of 2008 for amendment of the Writ Petition so as to include two additional grounds that the Vigilance Judge committed an illegality in taking cognizance of the offences against the petitioner against whom no offence was actually made out and that there was unexplained long delay of 15 years from the date of occurrence and also to include the following additional prayer:- W.P. ( C) Nos. 13804 of 2008 & W.P.(C) No. 20817 of 2008 -:4:- (d) to declare that Ext.P1 charge sheet does not disclose any offence and hence Ext.P1 and P2 are unsustainable in law and void ab-initio. 2. Writ Petition (C) No. 20817 of 2008 is filed by the first accused R. Narayanan who was the Chairman of the Kerala State Electricity Board (K.S.E.B. for short) during the period from 20-8-1991 to 19-6-1993. The reliefs prayed for in the said Writ Petition are the following:- “a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, issue quashing Exts. P1 charge sheet as illegal and unsustainable after calling for and perusing the records leading to the same. b) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction directing respondents 1 to 4 to drop the prosecution proceedings initiated in C.C. No. 3 of 2008 before the Vigilance Court, Thrissur against the petitioner, since it is violative of Sec. 4(2) of P.C. Act, 197 (1) and 188 of Crl. P.C. c) declare that the Vigilance Court, Thrissur is not having territorial jurisdiction and legal authority to proceed with Ext.P1 charge sheet against the petitioner. d) declare that Ext.P1 does not disclose any offence W.P. ( C) Nos. 13804 of 2008 & W.P.(C) No. 20817 of 2008 -:5:- against this petitioner and hence Ext.P1 is unsustainable and void ab initio e) issue such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the factual circumstances of the case f) award cost to the petitioner to the proceedings” Respondents 1 to 4 in this Writ Petition and W.P. (C) No. 17804 of 2008 are the same. THE ADVOCATES WHO APPEARED 3. I heard senior Advocate Sri. N. Dharmadan appearing for the petitioner (A5) in W.P. (C ) 13804 of 2008, Adv. Sri. V. Ajith Narayanan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (A1) in W.P.C. 20817 of 2008, Advocate Sri. P.S. Biju appearing for R. Sivadasan (A3 - 7th respondent in W.P.C. 13784/08) former Chairman of K.S.E.B. who took over from first accused R. Narayanan and Adv. Sri. K.K. Raveendranath, the learned Addl. Director General of Prosecutions and Adv. Sri. P.N. Sukumaran, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. W.P. ( C) Nos. 13804 of 2008 & W.P.(C) No. 20817 of 2008 -:6:- THE FORMER POWER MINISTER'S (A5) STAND 4. Sr. Adv. Sri. N. Dharmadan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (A5) in W.P.(C) 13804 of 2008 made the following submissions before me:- The gist of the charge is that accused Nos. 1 to 10 entered into a criminal conspiracy hatched at several official levels at different places within and outside India at different times since 1991 with the dishonest intention of securing the project contract of 5 diesel power generators in the Bhramapuram Diesel Plant at Ernakulam, in favour of A11 to A13 representing a French Company namely S.E.M.T. PIELSTICK for a price escalated than the original price charged by the said Company for the supply of similar D.G. sets to the Karnataka State Electricity Board for their Yelahanka Diesel Project causing wrongful loss to the Kerala State Electricity Board (K.S.E.B for short) and wrongful gain to the said French Company. It has also W.P. ( C) Nos. 13804 of 2008 & W.P.(C) No. 20817 of 2008 -:7:- been alleged in the charge that A1 , A2, A4 and A7 had travelled to France and visited the plant and factory of the French Company (A13) and held deliberations with A4. The main overt act alleged in the charge-sheet against the petitioner (A5) is that on 25-10-1991 A5 sent a letter to the Central Power Minister pursuant to a letter received by A5 from A6 and subsequently on 2-12-1992, A5 approved the Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU” for short) signed on 19-1-1992 by the Chairman of the K.S.E.B. at Paris in France. The proposal to set up a 100 mega watt (MW) Diesel Station was accepted by the State Planning Board way back in the year 1986 and K.S.E.B was directed to take necessary action. Accordingly, the Central Electricity Authority was approached for sanction and a statutory notification was published. On 2-4-1987, the Left Democratic Government ("LDF" for short ) came into power in the State of Kerala with Sri. E. K. Nayanar as the Chief Minister and Sri. T. Sivadasa Menon as the Power Minister. The said LDF Government was also W.P. ( C) Nos. 13804 of 2008 & W.P.(C) No. 20817 of 2008 -:8:- making strenuous efforts for getting clearance for the Project from the Government of India and other Central Agencies. A major breakthrough came on 19-2-1991 when Debashish Mazumdar (A6) met Sivadasa Menon at Delhi and offered to supply D.G. sets and machinery as were supplied to the Yelahanka Project in Karnataka State with suitable commercial adjustments for the time lag. Sivadasa Menon had noted in the files that the suggested scheme was beneficial to the State and directed further examination and discussion with the parties. On 12-4- 1991, the K.S.E.B. signed an MOU with S.E.M.T. PIELSTICK of France and another MOU with the CDE a French Financial Agency for the Kasaragod Project. The price agreed upon was higher than that of Yelahanka. On 3-7-1991 the United Democratic Front ("UDF" for short ) came into power in the State of Kerala with Sri. K. Karunakaran as the Chief Minister and the petitioner (A5) as the Power Minister . Since certain objections were raised regarding the site selected for the Kasaragod W.P. ( C) Nos. 13804 of 2008 & W.P.(C) No. 20817 of 2008 -:9:- Project the K.S.E.B. eventually opted for Bhramapuram in Ernakulam District instead of Kasaragod. An MOU similar to that of Kasaragod Project was executed at Paris by the K.S.E.B. and S.E.M.T. PIELSTICK for the Bhramapuram Project. It was a decision taken by the K.S.E.B itself . The K.S.E.B. is legally competent to do so without any direction either from the Government or from the petitioner (A5) who was then the Power Minister. Subsequently the K.S.E.B. succeeded in getting all clearance for the project from the Central Government Agencies. When the Central Government insisted on State Government guarantee, approval of the MOU became necessary. It was at that stage that on the recommendations of the then Power Secretary the petitioner approved the MOU which had been signed from Paris. After deciding to give State Government guarantee for the project the file was circulated to the Finance Minister and Chief Minister and finally to the Council of Ministers. The whole proceedings were approved by the W.P. ( C) Nos. 13804 of 2008 & W.P.(C) No. 20817 of 2008 -:10:- said Ministers as well as the Council of Ministers. Thereafter a tripartite agreement was executed and thereupon the MOU became a full-fledged contract binding on the parties. Going by the functions of a Minister as prescribed in the Rules of Business sanction from the Council of Ministers is not necessary for the Minister to approve an MOU. Such acts are only part of his routine official duties in his capacity as a Minister. Moreover the Rules of Business are not justiciable . Ext.P1 charge sheet is the product of political vendetta . A5 relies on the decisions in [State of Andhra Pradesh v. P.V. Pavithran- 1990 - Crl.L.J. 1306 (SC), Ramanand Chaudhary v. State of Bihar and Others - 1994 Crl.L.J. 1221 (SC), Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta and Another v. Bombay Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., - AIR 1995 SC 577 and Lambodaran Nair v. State of Kerala - 2003 (1) KLT 83 (SN) 115) in this context. The sword of Damocles has been hanging over the head of A5 since 17-8-1999, the date on which the F.I.R. was W.P. ( C) Nos. 13804 of 2008 & W.P.(C) No. 20817 of 2008 -:11:- registered against A5 and others. The Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur ("Vigilance Court" for short) had no territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance or deal with any of the offences alleged in Ext.P1 charge-sheet. In this case the acts alleged against the accused constituting the offences were all done either at Thiruvananthapuram or at Paris in France. So the Vigilance Court, Thrissur had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences, much less, issue summons to the accused. That Court has no jurisdiction to try those offences. The cognizance taken by that court is illegal, null and void and liable to be quashed. Moreover, since the acts alleged against the petitioner were committed while acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duty as Minister, even if Sec. 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is not attracted for the reason that the petitioner has ceased to be a public servant, the provisions of Section 197 Cr.P.C. are squarely attracted and the prosecution of the petitioner (A5) for want of sanction W.P. ( C) Nos. 13804 of 2008 & W.P.(C) No. 20817 of 2008 -:12:- under Sec. 197 Cr.P.C. is illegal and liable to be quashed. The cognizance taken and summons issued by the Vigilance Court, Thrissur for the offences allegedly committed outside India is also bad for the reason that the previous sanction of the Central Government has not been obtained under the proviso to Sec. 188 Cr.P.C. before the commencement of inquiry and the act of taking cognizance and issuing process is part of the enquiry before the Court. (STAND OF A3 (FORMER CHAIRMAN OF K.S.E.B ) 5. Adv. Sri.P.S. Biju, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd accused (R. Sivadasan) made the following submissions before me in support of W.P.C. 13804 of 2008 in which he is the 7th respondent:- The 3rd accused is a member of the Indian Railway Account Service (IRAS). It was 11 years after the 3rd accused left the K.S.E.B. as its Chairman that he is being prosecuted. The contract with the French Company S.E.M.T. PIELSTICK was signed during January 1992 at a time when the first accused in the case was the Charmian W.P. ( C) Nos. 13804 of 2008 & W.P.(C) No. 20817 of 2008 -:13:- of the KSEB. The 3rd accused came as a Chairman long thereafter and except for the fact that the conditionalities in the contract already signed got their approval during the tenure of the 3rd accused, he had absolutely no role to play in the alleged commission of the offences. Apart from the fact that the police charge is vague and incomplete for want of details regarding the place, date and time of occurrence as mandated by Sec. 212 of Cr.P.C. the State Government is prosecuting officials for the project fixed and approved by the Government of India and the Central Electricity Authority for which the President of India has stood guarantee. There is a specific clause in the guarantee by the Government of India that the guarantee will be governed by the French Law. The allegations in Ext.P1 charge are in relation to a project in which the Government of Kerala and the French Government are parties. French Nationals are also accused under Ext.P1 charge-sheet. Therefore the case cannot be tried without the prior approval of the Government of India. This W.P. ( C) Nos. 13804 of 2008 & W.P.(C) No. 20817 of 2008 -:14:- respondent supports the Writ Petition filed by the 5th accused also besides raising these additional grounds. STAND OF A1 (FORMER CHAIRMAN OF K.S.E.B 6. Advocate Sri. Ajith Narayanan, the learned counsel appearing for the first accused (R. Narayanan) who has filed W.P.C. 20817 of 2008 made the following submissions in support of the said Writ Petition :- The first accused was the former Chairman of the KSEB . He had worked in various capacities as the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Kerala, Chairman of the State Pay Commission, Chairman of Food Corporation of India and Commissioner of Travancore Devaswom Board etc. He was the Chairman of the K.S.E.B. during the period between 20-08-1991 and 19-6- 1993. It was he who signed the MOU at Paris on 19-1-1992 and the said MOU was approved by A5 the Power Minister on 2-12-1993. The MOU is not a binding contract but only a Memorandum of Understanding arrived at between parties who are interested in a given proposal. The W.P. ( C) Nos. 13804 of 2008 & W.P.(C) No. 20817 of 2008 -:15:- subsequent negotiation of the proposal , approval of the agreement and signing of the contract etc. took place after A1 ceased to be the Chairman of the K.S.E.B. The basic document is not the MOU signed in the case. It was A4 (Bertran Netto) who was the Chief Engineer of K.S.E.B. who placed orders with A13 the French Company on 3-12- 1993. The agreement was finally executed on 16-12-1993 between A4 and A13. The price structure was re- scheduled on 14-12-1993 at the instance of A4. A1 had nothing to do with the K.S.E.B. after 19-6-1993. MOU is only a precursor to a binding contract. If signing of an MOU would amount to an a binding contract then an MOU had been signed for the Kasaragod Project also but the Central Electricity Authority was not in favour of the thermal plant being installed at Kasaragod. A1 also presses into service Sec. 188 Cr.P.C. as also the decision of a Full Bench of this Court at para 20 in Samaruddin v. Asst. Director of Enforcement - 1999 (2) KLT 794. Going by Sections 18, 78 A and 82 of the Electricity Supply Act, the W.P. ( C) Nos. 13804 of 2008 & W.P.(C) No. 20817 of 2008 -:16:- action of signing the MOU has been done in good faith and consistent with the policy of the State Government. The statement of CW 45 who was the Area Manager of the French Company (A13) has not been recorded nor produced before Court. It was C.W.45 who signed the MOU on behalf of A13. It was he who sent the basic documents as also the reply dated 2-8-1991 to A2. This respondent also supports the contentions of the other accused persons including A3 and A5. STAND OF THE PROSECUTION 7. Adv. Sri. K.K. Raveendranath, the learned Addl. Director General of Prosecutions and Adv. Sri. P.N. Sukumaran, the learned Public Prosecutor made the following submissions before me in opposition to the Writ Petitions:- The following is the chronological events leading to the registration of the F.I.R., commencement of the investigation and filing of charge-sheet before the court below:- W.P. ( C) Nos. 13804 of 2008 & W.P.(C) No. 20817 of 2008 -:17:- 10/04/91 Discussion by Deputy Chief Engineer R&P with Karnataka Electricity Board Officers regarding the Yelahanka Project 16-07-1991 Accused No. 2 Moorthy sent letter of interest to accused No. 6 Mazumdar, who is the Indian Collaborator of A13, French Company regarding the Brahmapuram Project. August 1991 A13 sent an offer document in response to the letter 16-7-1991 of Accused No.2. A draft MOU giving the price was sent. Price offered was 285.127 million French Franks 24-10-1991 A6 sent letter to A5 stating the benefit of the Diesel Power Plant. Yelahanka specifications of contract details were agreed to be supplied 25-10-1991 A5 sent letter to Central Minister asking for clearance 07/12/91 Accused No.1, Narayanan, Chairman, sent a letter to the State Government requesting to sanction foreign tour for a team to discuss the matter with A13 company at France 20-12-2991 G.O. No. 186/91/PD issued granting permission to send a team to France for having discussion with A13 Company W.P. ( C) Nos. 13804 of 2008 & W.P.(C) No. 20817 of 2008 -:18:- 14-01-1992 A1, A2, A4 and A7 went to France to have discussion with the company regarding their offer. 19-1-1992 MOU signed at Paris for a higher price than the price offered in the year 1991 Offered price in the August 1991 offer was equipment price - 285.127 Million FRF Price in the MOU - 291.510 Million FRF Difference - 6.383 Million FRF Ocean freight and Insurance- 4.7 Million FRF Total loss is - (Rs. 5.984 crores) - Including duplication of Ocean freight and Insurance. 29-04-1992 A1, placed the matter before the Bord Meeting of K.S.E.B. without submitting the contract document and offered price. Facing sheet of MOU alone was submitted and got the matter passed in the Board Meeting. The representation was that the proposal is as in Yelahanka 27-11-1993 A3 sent a letter to the Power Secretary stating the details of contract and the Power Secretary placed the matter before Accused No.5 the then Minister. A3,A4 and A8 were Board Members. W.P. ( C) Nos. 13804 of 2008 & W.P.(C) No. 20817 of 2008 -:19:- 02/12/93 A5 approved the MOU . This was without placing the matter before the Cabinet as enjoined by entry 16 of Sch. I of the Rules of Business. 03/12/93 Secretary, KSEB noted the irregularity . But A3, A4 and A8 who were Board Members put up note stating that approval of Minister is sufficient and authorized A4 to place the order. 10/12/93 Under Secretary put a query in the note file whether approval given to MOU can be considered as approval to the contract Power Secretary discussed the matter with A5 Minister and put up a note “Discussed with M(elec) and Board order is as per his intention” 14-12-1993 Meeting of the Board and price structure changed. CIF converted to FOB and additional freight and insurance added. Total FRF remained the same. A2, A3, A8 and A9 were the Board Members. 16-12-1993 Agreement signed between KSEB and accused No.13 The question of sanction under Sec. 197 Cr.P.C. can be considered only during the trial of the case . (See P.K. Pradhan v. State of Sikkim - 2001 Crl.L.J. 3505 SC, Paragraph 29 of M.P. Special Police Establishment v. State of M.P. and Others - 2004 (8) SCC 788 and State of W.P. ( C) Nos. 13804 of 2008 & W.P.(C) No. 20817 of 2008 -:20:- Maharashtra v. Devahari Devasingh Pawar & Others - 2008 Crl.L.J. 1593 (SC). Committing an offence is no part of the official duty of a public servant. Hence, for prosecuting a public servant who has committed offences punishable under Sections 420, 120 B and related offences, no sanction is necessary under Sec. 197 Cr.P.C. (See Harihar Prasad v. State of Bihar - 1972 SCC Crl. 409 - Para 66, State of Kerala v. Padmanabhan Nair - 1999 Crl.L.J. 3696 (SC), Parkash Singh Badal and Another v. State of Punjab and Others - 2007 (1) SCC 1- Para 50, State of H.P. v. M.P. Gupta - 2004 (2) SCC 349 - Para 21, Satwant Singh v. The State of Punjab - AIR 1960 SC 266, Bakhshish Singh v. The State of Punjab - AIR 1967 SC 752 and Manohar Nath Kaul v. State of Jammu and Kashmir - AIR 1983 SC 610). Equally misconceived