Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Uday Shivram Patane, was the original complainant in a criminal case against respondents who were office bearers of a cooperative credit society. The petitioner alleged that the respondents misappropriated funds by sanctioning loans to him and his family members but not disbursing the full amount, and later misused blank cheques and documents. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Satara, issued process against the respondents for offences under Sections 403, 406, 309, 167, 120(b), 418, 468 and 477 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondents filed a revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Satara, who quashed the process on the ground that the respondents were public servants and no sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was obtained. The petitioner challenged this revisional order in the High Court. The High Court examined whether the respondents were public servants and whether the alleged acts were in discharge of official duty. Relying on the definition of 'public servant' under Section 21 of the IPC and the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, the Court held that the respondents, being employees of a cooperative society which is a 'public undertaking', were public servants. The Court further held that the acts of sanctioning loans and handling documents were part of their official duty. Therefore, sanction under Section 197 CrPC was mandatory. The Revisional Court correctly quashed the process. The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the revisional order.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Sanction for Prosecution - Section 197 CrPC - Public Servant - The issue was whether the respondents, being Chairman, Vice Chairman and Manager of a cooperative credit society, were public servants entitled to protection under Section 197 CrPC. The Court held that the respondents were public servants as they were employees of a cooperative society which is a 'public undertaking' under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, and the alleged acts of sanctioning loans were in discharge of official duty. Therefore, sanction was mandatory before taking cognizance. (Paras 8-12) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Quashing of Process - Revisional Jurisdiction - The Revisional Court has power to quash process if the Magistrate took cognizance without sanction under Section 197 CrPC. The Court upheld the revisional order quashing the process, as the absence of sanction vitiated the proceedings. (Paras 13-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Revisional Court was justified in quashing the process issued against the respondents for want of sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the revisional order quashing the process for want of sanction under Section 197 CrPC.
Law Points
- Sanction under Section 197 CrPC is mandatory for prosecution of public servants for acts done in discharge of official duty
- Revisional court can quash process if cognizance is taken without sanction
- Loan sanction by cooperative society officials is part of official duty
