SC Declines To Quash Action Against Former Indian Bank CMD

SC Declines To Quash Action Against Former Indian Bank CMD 2/14/2009 The Supreme Court has declined to quash the criminal proceedings against former Indian Bank Chairman and Managing Director M Gopalakrishnan and others in a corruption case. A bench comprising Justices Arijit Pasayat and Mukundakam Sharma refused to interfere with the Madras High Court order, which had dismissed their petition under section 482 CrPC for quashing of the proceedings on the grounds that the sanction under Section 197 has not been obtained and the petitioners being public servants cannot be prosecuted for criminal offences without sanction as per Section 197 CrPC. The apex court in its judgment dated February 11, quoted its earlier judgment in Parkash Singh Badal case, in which the apex court had held that by no stretch of imagination a public servant facing allegations of corruption can claim that corruption has any nexus with discharge of official duty by a public servant. The protection of sanction is available only for bonafide acts of the public servant in official discharge of his duty. Mr Gopalakrishnan along with 19 other accused, including N Kumaraswami, R Ramesh, T S Jaikumar and Kalakumara Swami were charged with the offences under Section 120 B (criminal conspiracy), 420 IPC(cheating) read with section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioners have claimed that since they were public servants appointed by RBI they can only be removed by RBI and can be prosecuted only after obtaining sanctions from the competent authority under Section 197. The main allegations were that R Ramesh, Jaikumar and Kumaraswami allegedly accepted Rs 15 lakhs and Rs 5 lakhs in demand draft and an ambassador innova car for extending loans to the firms of their relatives. Mr Gopalakrishnan, however, defended himself that though he was overall in-charge of the bank but he was not personally involved in the illegal transaction. The state has contended that the issue of sanction can be decided during trial and the proceedings cannot be quashed on that ground. The apex court upholding the High Court judgment said the High Court’s view does not suffer from infirmity to warrant interference. The appeals fail and are dismissed. UNI

"Loved reading this piece by AEJAZ AHMED?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"

Join our Telegram group

Join our Whatsapp group