HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Petition No.7473 of 2008 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing proceedings in CC No.139 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadepallegudem, against the petitioner-A.3 2. Heard both sides. 3. The 2nd respondent herein gave a complaint to the police against the petitioner-A.3 and others, alleging the offences under sections 114, 119, 406, 418, 465 and 468 read with 34 IPC and the same was registered as Cr.No.236 of 2005 and after due investigation, filed a charge sheet and the same was taken cognizance in CC No.139 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadepallegudem. 4. According to the complainant, A.1 is the consultant civil engineer and proprietor of Srilakshmi Cashew Nut Processing Industry, Yernagudem and resident of Nidadavolu. A.2 is the wife of A.1, and A.3 worked as Branch Manager of Punjab National Bank, Tadepallegudem at the relevant time. It is alleged that A.1 approached the bank for loan in connection with his business seeking sanction of term loan of Rs.25.90 lakhs and cash credit facility of Rs.60 lakhs and A.2 stood as guarantor. It is further alleged that the securities offered by the accused were found to be bogus. It is further alleged that on the strength of bogus statements and papers furnished by A.1, the petitioner-A.3 recommended the sanction of the loan and subsequently when the bank officials visited the business premises of A.1 on 09.03.2005 it was found that the unit was locked and no one was present and on subsequent visits also it was found that the unit was not in operation. It is further alleged that A.1 defaulted in repayment of the loan to the extent of Rs.23,79,099/-. It is specifically alleged against the petitioner-A.3 that on the eve of the inspection by the higher officials, A.3 visited the cashew nut unit of A.1 and advised A.1 to set fire to the unit and destroy the unit. It is further alleged that the petitioner-A.3 has actively supported A.1 and his wife A.2 in furnishing bogus project report and bogus report and bogus stock statement to the bank and made the bank release the huge amounts by way of loan and credit facility and thereby committed fraud. The case was registered on the complaint given by the successor-Manager of the Punjab National Bank at Tadepallegudem. 5. A perusal of the complaint and charge sheet would disclose that specific allegations have been made against the petitioner-A.3 to the effect that being Manager of the bank, he played fraud on the bank by processing loan papers submitted by A.1 knowing them to be bogus and fabricated and made recommendation for sanction of the loan based on such bogus documents and securities, which resulted in huge loss to the bank. It is further alleged that on the eve of the inspection of the bank by the superior authorities, A.3 advised A.1 to set fire to the unit and destroy the unit. 6. Having regard to the gravity and nature of the offences alleged and serious and specific allegations made against the petitioner-A.3, it is not a fit case to invoke the inherent powers of the court under section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash further proceedings. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the charge sheet is vitiated for not obtaining sanction as required under section 197 Cr.P.C. insofar as the petitioner-A.3 who is employee of the nationalized bank and therefore, public servant, within the meaning of section 21 of IPC. In that connection, he relied upon the decision of the apex court in ‘Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Mitra[1]’, wherein it was held that the employee of nationalized bank is a public servant within the meaning of section 21 IPC. 8. In a recent decision ‘Choudhury Parveen Sultana v. State of West Bengal[2]’, the apex Court held that the acts done by a public servant in the purported discharge of his official duties cannot as a matter of course be brought under the protective umbrella of section 197 Cr.P.C. It was held as follows: “The direction which had been given by this Court, as far back as in 1971 in Bhagwan Prasad Prasad Srivastava's case (supra) holds good even today. All acts done by a public servant in the purported discharge of his official duties cannot as a matter of course be brought under the protective umbrella of Section 197 Cr.P.C. On the other hand, there can be cases of misuse and/or abuse of powers vested in a public servant which can never be said to be a part of the official duties required to be performed by him. As mentioned in Bhagwan Prasad Srivastava's case (supra), the underlying object of Section 197 Cr.P.C is to enable the authorities to scrutinize the allegations made against a public servant to shield him/her against frivolous, vexatious or false prosecution initiated with the main object of causing embarrassment and harassment to the said official. However, as indicated hereinabove, if the authority vested in a public servant is misused for doing things which are not otherwise permitted under the law, such acts cannot claim the protection of Section 197 Cr.P.C. and have to be considered de hors the duties which a public servant is required to discharge or perform. Hence, in respect of prosecution for such excesses or misuse of authority, no protection can be demanded by the public servant concerned.” 9. In the present case also, the allegations made against the petitioner-A.3 are to the effect that he indulged in acts of misuse of his authority, which are not otherwise permitted and are not part of his duty. The specific allegation against the petitioner/A.3 is that he aided and obeyed A.1 and A.2 and took active part in the commission of the alleged offences by recommending the loan with full knowledge that the documents and securities furnished by A.1 and A.2 are bogus and subsequently advised A.1 to destroy the unit by setting fire to the unit. Such acts are clearly out side purview of the legitimate duties of the petitioner-A.3 as Manager of the Bank, amounting to clear misuse of his authority. The protection of section 197 Cr.P.C. cannot therefore be extended in a case like present one, in view of the nature of the allegations made and the gravity of the offences alleged against the petitioner- A.3 in the light of the principles laid down in the above decision. 10. In the circumstances, it is considered not a fit case to invoke inherent powers of the court under section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash further proceedings against the petitioner-A.3 in CC No.139 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tadepalligudem. 11. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 08.12.2011 bss [1] AIR 1995 SC 1976 [2] 2009(1) Scale 374