IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 8 th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.8318/2010 BETWEEN: 1. Prof. K.V.A.Balaji, Age: Major, Former Registrar of Visvesvraya Technological University R/a 1552/1, Vani Vilas Road, K.R.Mohalla, Mysore — 570 004. 2. Prof. H.P.Khincha, Age Major, Former Vice-Chandcellor, Visvesvraya Technological University R!a 11/ 1 4 th Main, Chamarajpet, Bangalore — 560 018. .. PETTTIONER5 (by Shri V.Y.Kurnar, Adv., for Raviraj C Patil, Adv.,) AND: 1. Prof. K.Balaveera Reddy, S/o K.Veera Reddy, Aged about 69 years, Fonner Vice-Chancellor of Visvesvraya Technological University Belgaum, RIa 10, IV ‘A’ Cross, 211(1 Block, HRBR Layout, Kalyana Nagar, Bangalore — 560 063. 2. Dr. M.S.Shivakumar, Sb late M.P.Subraya, Aged 59 years, Principal, The National Institute of Engineering (NIE) Mysore. 3. Dr.S.Mohan Kumar, S/o late Siddalingappa, Major, Principal, Government Engineering College, Hassan. 4. Dr.K.N.Umesh, Sb K.R.Nagaraja Rao, Aged 54 years, Dean (Academy Affairs) and Professor and Head, Department of Mechanical Engineering, PES College of Engineering, Mysore. .. RESPONDENTS (By Shri K.Ram P.Ghoipade, Adv., for Respondent-i to Respondent-4) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the proceedings in the Crime No.1362/2010 (PCR No.311/2010) dated 14.9.2010 on the file of the JMFC-TI Court, Belgaum punishable under sections 417, 420, 465, 468, 469 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. This Petition coming on for Admission this day, the court made the following: ORDER Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. It is the case of the first petitioner that he was working as a Registrar of the Visvesvraya Technological University in Gnana Sangama Campus at Macche, Belgaum and the second petitioner was working as a Vice-Chancellor during the period from 1st April 2008 to 22 September 2010 and 2 July 2007 to 1st July 2010, respectively. 4 It is stated that the first respondent was also working as a Vice-Chancellor for a period of two terms, namely, from l April 2001 to 2 July 2007 and the second respondent was working as a Registrar, Visvesvaraya Technological University, Belgaum. Respondents 2 to 4 are witnesses fielded by the first respondent in his private complaint which is pending consideration before the Cowl of the Judicial Magistrate First Class-Il, Belgaum, registered as PCR No.311/2010 alleging offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 465, 468, 469, 500 read with Section 34 of the indian Penal Code and an offence punishable under Section 63 ofthe Copyrights Act. The complaint is that the first petitioner has fraudulently and dishonestly concealed the true fact that the first respondent herein was the ChiefEditor ofa compilation entitled “A Primer on Computer Aided Engineering Drawing’ Second Edition prescribed for the first and second Semester B.E., courses and further concealed the authorship by showing the name of the 6 second petitioner as the Chief Editor and therefore, committed offences punishable under Sections 415 and 417 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. There are other allegations making out offences punishable under other sections, which is not necessary to go into in this order. 3. The primary contention raised by the petitioners herein is that the petitioners had acted in the course of their functioning as Registrar and Vice-Chancellor of the University, respectively, in having shown themselves as part of the Editorial Board, as alleged. Even if this could be claimed to be an offence committed under the several Sections that have been invoked by the complainant, in terms of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it was necessary for the complainant to have obtained prior sanction as mandated therein and since the acts complained of are acts which are carried out by the petitioners in the course of their official duties, the sanction is mandatory and the complaint having been 6 entertained without such prior sanction is violative of the law and takes away the immunity that is available to the petitioners. It is this primary contention which is sought to be canvassed while incidentally contending on the merits of the case. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent would seek to resist the petition on the ground that the acts complained of by the respondents do not fall within the purview of the acts committed in the course of discharge of their official duties. However, it is not seriously disputed that the offences allegedly committed by the petitioners was during the year 2009 when the petitioners undisputedly occupied positions as Registrar and Vice-Chancellor, respectively, of Visvesvraya Technological University. Ifthis is to be accepted. the complaint pertaining to their actions as such office bearers would necessarily bring the acts within the scope of discharge of their official duties. This, however, is not a final finding but, a prima fhcie finding in the opinion of this court, in order to issue further directions 7 as would be warranted in the light of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, this court having found prima facie that the allegations against these petitioners are in respect of acts performed in discharge of their official duties and since they certainly were holding positions under the State Government, it was appropriate that the complainant obtained prior sanction in instituting the complaint. This admittedly has not been obtained by the complainant. Since the complainant would assert that such a sanction was not necessary for various reasons, these contentions are left open. 5. The petition is disposed of while directing the court below to consider as a preliminary issue and to hear the parties and dispose of the matter one way or the other, addressing the pointed question whether prior sanction under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was necessary to entertain the complaint against the present petitioners. The trial court is therefore directed to address this issue, afford an opportunity to S both the parties to address their respective cases and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Any observations made by this court in the course of this order shall however not influence the court in any manner and it is only a prima facie observation for the requirement of the trial court to consider this issue in the first instance. With that observation the petition stands disposed of. In that view of the matter, it would be in the fitness of things that the petitioners be exempted from appearance until such time the complaint is held maintainable with or without sanction, as the court may decide. Sd! JUDGE fly