ORDER : 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following relief: Quash the entire proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.271/2016 pending on the file of the Hon’ble XXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge & Prl. Special Judge for CBI cases at Bengaluru, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120-B r/w 409, 420, 467, 467, 471 of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c)(d) of PC Act 1988. 2. The first information has submitted by the General Manager-Vijaya Bank, Head Office, Bangalore-respondent No.2 herein to the CBI, Bangalore on 27.2.2015 on which basis Crime No.RC03(A)/2015/ACB came to be registered under Section 120-B, read with Section 409, 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c)(d) of the P.C. Act for the offences of criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery using forged documents as genuine and criminal misconduct. The investigation, having been entrusted to the Police Inspector of CBI, investigation was carried out. 3. A gist of the complaint was that there being a suspicion by service cell, central inspection department of the Bank as regards the credit transaction happening in a particular account, the said cell got suspicious and decided to investigate the account. Upon investigation it was revealed that the petitioner who is accused No.1 & certain others had entered into a criminal conspiracy among themselves during year 2014-15 in the matter of opening of the current accounts in the name of M/s Prince Links, M/s JMJ Enterprises. 4. Fixed deposit held in the account of M/s Mysore Mineral Limited (MNL) and Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (RGUHS) where pre-closed and those amount were transferred to the account of M/s Prince Links and M/s JMJ Enterprises based on false and fabricated documents and it is in that manner that is alleged that a loss of Rs.22.5 crores was caused to the complainant-Bank. On that basis the trail Court took cognizance for the aforesaid offences on 18.6.2016, it is challenging the said FIR and order of cognizance that the petitioner is before this Court. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that; 5.1. On that basis the trail Court took cognizance for the aforesaid offences on 18.6.2016, it is challenging the said FIR and order of cognizance that the petitioner is before this Court. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that; 5.1. The petitioner has been charged with offences under section 409, 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC and as such before cognizance could be taken by the Court necessary previous sanction was to be obtained under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. without previous sanction the trial Court ought not to have taken cognizance. 5.2. Insofar as the offences under Section 13(2), 13(1)(c) and (d) are concerned his submission is that necessary sanction has to be obtained under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the same not having been done the cognizance taken by the trial Court is improper and as such he submits that no prosecution could have been initiated against the petitioner and no cognizance could be taken and proceedings are required to be quashed. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 would submit that; 6.1. The petitioner is not a public servant in the strictest terms, the petitioner is the Bank Manager of the Vijaya Bank would discharges public functions and would come within the purview of Section 197 but would not be eligible for contending that the previous sanction is required to be obtained and in this regard he relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in A. Sreenivasa Reddy v. Rakesh Sharma, 2023 (8) SCC 711 more particularly para 45 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference; 45. The appellant was serving as an Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Overseas Bank at Hyderabad. State Bank of India is a nationalised bank. Although a person working in a nationalised bank is a public servant, yet the provisions of Section 197 CrPC would not be attracted at all as Section 197 is attracted only in cases where the public servant is such who is not removable from his service save by or with the sanction of the Government. It is not disputed that the appellant is not holding a post where he could not be removed from service except by or with the sanction of the Government. It is not disputed that the appellant is not holding a post where he could not be removed from service except by or with the sanction of the Government. In this view of the matter, even if it is alleged that the appellant herein is a public servant, still the provisions of Section 197 CrPC are not attracted at all. 6.2. Insofar as the sanction under Section 19 is concerned, his submission is that the said sanction would be required only as regards a public servant who is in employment at the time when cognizance was taken. 6.3. In this particular period the petitioner being a Bank Manager discharging public function not being a public servant would also not come in the purview of Section 19. 6.4. Furthermore, his submission is that the petitioner had already been dismissed from service as on the date on which cognizance was taken on 30.4.2016, the cognizance having been taken on 18.6.2016. Thus, as on the date on which the trial Court took cognizance the petitioner not being in employment Section 19 would not apply. 6.5. Lastly, he submits that since no interim order had been passed by this Court the matter had proceed to trial out of 72 witness 67 witness have already been examined and cross-examined, the balance 5 witness would also be examine shortly and made available for cross examination to the petitioner and as such at this stage this Court ought not to intercede in the matter and therefore he submits that the above petition is required to be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 adopt the submission of counsel for respondent No.1. 8. Heard Sri.Rudrappa.P., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Prasanna Kumar., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri.Nagaraj Damodar., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. Perused papers. 9. On the basis of the submission made by the counsels the points that would arises for determination are; 1. Whether a sanction under Section 197 of Cr PC is required to be obtained for investigation of the prosecution under Section 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC or like and cognate offences in respect of a Bank Manager? 2. Whether the requirement of obtaining the previous sanction under Section 19 The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 would apply to a public servant who has already been dismissed from service? 3. 2. Whether the requirement of obtaining the previous sanction under Section 19 The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 would apply to a public servant who has already been dismissed from service? 3. Whether it is required for this Court to intercede in the matter? 4. What order? 10. I answer above points as under; 11. Answer to point No.1: Whether a sanction under Section 197 of Cr PC is required to be obtained for investigation of the prosecution under Section 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC or like and cognate offences in respect of a Bank Manager? 11.1. Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. which reads as under: 197. Prosecution of Judges and public servants: (1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his officer save by or with the sanction of the Government, is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction [save as otherwise provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013]- (a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government; (b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State of the State Government: [PROVIDED that where the alleged offence was committed by a person referred to in clause (b) during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of Article 356 of the Constitution was in force in a State, clause (b) will apply as if for the expression "State Government" occurring therein, the expression "Central Government" were substituted.] [Explanation. -For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that no sanction shall be required in case of a public servant accused of any offence alleged to have been committed under section 166A, section 166B, section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 370, section 375, section 376, [section 376A, section 376AB, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB,] [Inserted by Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 ] or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code. (45 of 1860)] (2) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Union while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. (3) The State Government may, by notification, direct that the provisions of sub-section (2) shall apply to such class or category of the members(of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order as may be specified therein, wherever they may be serving, and thereupon the provisions of that subsection will apply as if for the expression "Central Government" occurring therein the expression "State Government" were substituted. [(3-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (3), no court shall take cognizance of any offence, alleged to have been committed by any member of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order in a State while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of Article 356 of the Constitution was in force therein, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. (3-B) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Code or any other law, it is hereby declared that any sanction accorded by the State Government or any cognizance taken by a Court upon such sanction, during the period commencing on the 20th day of August, 1991 and ending with the date immediately preceding the date on which the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1991, receives the assent of the President, with respect to an offence alleged to have been committed during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of Article 356 of the Constitution was in force in the State, shall be invalid and it shall be competent for the Central Government in such matter to accord sanction and for the court to take cognizance thereon.] (4) The Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, may determine the person by whom, the manner in which, and the offence or offences for which, the prosecution of such Judge, Magistrate or public servant is to be conducted, and may specify the Court before which the trial is to be held. 11.2. A perusal of the said proviso would indicate that the same would apply to prosecution of judges and public servants who cannot be removed from their office, without the sanction of the Government. The petitioner being a Bank Manager though discharging public duties and public functions is not a person who can be removed only with the sanction of the State Government or the Indian Government but can be removed by its Disciplinary Authority in the Bank itself. As held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in A. Sreenivasa Reddy v. Rakesh Sharma (Supra) at para 45 thereof which has been extracted hereinabove, the petitioner who is a Bank manager though is a public servant, the provision of Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. would not be attracted. 11.3. In that view of the matter, I answer point No.1 by holding that no previous sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. would be required in respect of a Manager, Assistant Manager or like of the Bank since he could be removed by the Disciplinary Authority and there would be no requirement for Central Government or the State Government to remove him/her. 12. 12. Answer to point No.2: Whether the requirement of obtaining the previous sanction under Section 19 of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 would apply to a public servant who has already been dismissed from service? 12.1. Sub section (1) of Section 19 of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 reads as under; CHAPTER V SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 19. 12.1. Sub section (1) of Section 19 of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 reads as under; CHAPTER V SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution.—(1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under [sections 7, 11, 13 and 15] alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction [save as otherwise provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 (1 of 2014)]— (a) in the case of a person [who is employed, or as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed] in connection with the affairs of the Union and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government, of that Government; (b) in the case of a person [who is employed, or as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed] in connection with the affairs of a State and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government, of that Government; (c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office: [Provided that no request can be made, by a person other than a police officer or an officer of an investigation agency or other law enforcement authority, to the appropriate Government or competent authority, as the case may be, for the previous sanction of such Government or authority for taking cognizance by the court of any of the offences specified in this sub-section, unless— (i) such person has filed a complaint in a competent court about the alleged offences for which the public servant is sought to be prosecuted; and (ii) the court has not dismissed the complaint under section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) and directed the complainant to obtain the sanction for prosecution against the public servant for further proceeding: Provided further that in the case of request from the person other than a police officer or an officer of an investigation agency or other law enforcement authority, the appropriate Government or competent authority shall not accord sanction to prosecute a public servant without providing an opportunity of being heard to the concerned public servant: Provided also that the appropriate Government or any competent authority shall, after the receipt of the proposal requiring sanction for prosecution of a public servant under this sub-section, endeavour to convey the decision on such proposal within a period of three months from the date of its receipt: Provided also that in case where, for the purpose of grant of sanction for prosecution, legal consultation is required, such period may, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, be extended by a further period of one month: Provided also that the Central Government may, for the purpose of sanction for prosecution of a public servant, prescribe such guidelines as it considers necessary. Explanation.—For the purposes of sub-section (1), the expression “public servant” includes such person— (a) who has ceased to hold the office during which the offence is alleged to have been committed; or (b) who has ceased to hold the office during which the offence is alleged to have been committed and is holding an office other than the office during which the offence is alleged to have been committed. 12.2. A perusal of sub section (1) indicate that no Court shall take cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 7, 11, 13 and 15 which have been committed by the public servant except with the previous sanction. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no such sanction has been obtained the question of trial Court taking cognizance would not arise and therefore the order of cognizance is bad in law and the petitioner could not have been prosecuted in furtherance of such order of cognizance. 12.3. This aspect would have to be taken into consideration with reference to Clause (a), (b), (c) of Section 19. 12.4. In terms of Clause (a) of sub-Section (1) of Section 19, a person who is employed, or as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed in connection with the affairs of the Union and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government, would not be attracted in the present case, since the petitioner is not one who is employed in connection with the affairs of the Union. When the petitioner is not employed in connection with affairs of the union the question of ascertaining whether at the time of commission of the offence he was employed or not would not arise. 12.5. Clause (a) of sub-Section (1) Section 19 would not by itself apply to the petitioner who is a Bank Manager and who has not been employed in connection with the affairs of the union. 12.6. Clause (b) which also reads similar to Clause (a) but makes reference to the State Government would also not be applicable to the petitioner since the petitioner is not one who has been employed in connection with the affairs of the State and is not one who is removable from his office except with the sanction of the State Government. Clause (b) which also reads similar to Clause (a) but makes reference to the State Government would also not be applicable to the petitioner since the petitioner is not one who has been employed in connection with the affairs of the State and is not one who is removable from his office except with the sanction of the State Government. Thus, Clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 19 would also not be applicable to the petitioner. 12.7. In so far as Clause (c) is concerned, it relates to the case of any other person sanction is to be obtained from the authority competent to remove him from his office: 12.8. Clause (c) of sub-Section (1) of Section 19 does not take into consideration that person ought to have been employed at the time of commission of the offence. Reading Clause (c) would only indicate that he has to be a public servant at the time of taking cognizance. Thus, for a person who comes within Clause (c) of sub-Section (1) of Section 19, the benefit of being a public servant at the time of commission of the offence cannot be extended. 12.9. As a sequitur thereof, as on date on which the cognizance is taken that person is required to be a public servant. 12.10. In the present case the petitioner having been dismissed from service on 30.4.2016, cognizance having taken on 18.6.2016 the petitioner not being a public servant as on the date on which the cognizance was taken Section 19 would not be applicable to the petitioner. This view is also fortified by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex court in State of Kerala v. V. Padmanabhan Nair, AIR 1999 SCC 2405 more particularly para 6 thereof which is extracted hereunder for easy reference. 6. The correct legal position, therefore, is that an accused facing prosecution for offences under the PC Act cannot claim any immunity on the ground of want of sanction, if he ceased to be a public servant on the date when the court took cognizance of the said offences. So the High Court was at any rate wrong in quashing the prosecution proceedings insofar as they related to offences under the PC Act. 12.11. So the High Court was at any rate wrong in quashing the prosecution proceedings insofar as they related to offences under the PC Act. 12.11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. V. Padmanabhan Nair case (supra) has also come to a conclusion that insofar as the offences under Section 406 and 409 are concerned, if such an offences is alleged against the public servant, no sanction would be required since an offence under Section 406 and 409 or any other cognate offences which relate to criminal breach of trust would not come within the scope of employment or scope of discharging the public duties of a public servant requiring prior sanction under Section 197 of the CR.P.C. 12.12. Hence, I answer point No.2 by holding that there is no requirement of obtaining the previous sanction under Section 19 of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 when the public servant has already been dismissed from service prior to the date of taking cognizance. 13. Answer to point No.3: Whether it is required for this Court to intercede in the matter? 13.1. In view of the above discussions and answer to points No.1 and 2, I am of the considered opinion that the contentions raised by the petitioner not being maintainable and they being rejected, the petition does not make out any grounds for interference at the hands of this Court. 14. Answer to point No.4: What order? The criminal petition stands dismissed.