Safiya Malik

The High Court of Madras Single Bench of Justice M. Nirmal Kumar dismissed a petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings arising from alleged misappropriation of government funds under a state-run biodiversity conservation project. The Court held that the petitioner, a former public servant, could not claim protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C., as the allegations involved acts beyond the scope of official duties. It noted the existence of sufficient material to proceed with trial and directed the Special Court to conduct proceedings independently on merits, uninfluenced by any observations made in the order.

The petitioner served in the Tamil Nadu Forest Department since 1987, with a promotion to Deputy Conservator of Forests in 2022. Between 2011 and 2019, the Department executed the Tamil Nadu Biodiversity Conservation and Greening Project (TBGP), funded by the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA). The implementation structure of the project included a Project Management Unit (PMU), High Level Committee (HMC), and various Divisional and Field Management Units.

Also Read: “The Advertisement Certainly Required Them To Produce a Valid Certificate to Their Claim as per Rules” Supreme Court Dismisses Civil Judge Aspirants’ Pleas on Certificate Cut-Off

According to the petitioner, nursery activities and subsequent plantation work were organized through Forest Extension Officers, Rangers, and technical staff. Petty contractors were responsible for transporting plant seedlings to farmers, following consent documentation, land records, and photographs. Financial estimates and running account bills were verified before disbursement.

The core allegations pertain to the year 2014-15 when the petitioner held additional charge as Forestry Extension Officer in Coimbatore. During this period, four cheques totalling Rs.10,77,471/- were issued under the pretext of plantation charges. However, only Rs.76,210/- was distributed to 48 farmers. The petitioner allegedly conspired with two other accused, including a retired Ranger reappointed on contract and a registered petty contractor (A3), to fabricate vouchers and siphon off public funds.

The petitioner argued that his involvement was minimal, limited to additional charge duties for less than seven months, and that the financial disbursements followed standard operational procedures. He maintained that he had no direct connection with A3's appointment and that no discrepancies were flagged in subsequent internal audits or by his successor.

The petitioner also challenged the validity of the sanction for prosecution, contending that no sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. had been obtained for the IPC offences. He relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Directorate of Enforcement v. Bibhu Prasad Acharya [(2025) 1 SCC 404], arguing that actions purportedly taken in the discharge of official duty require such sanction.

The Government Advocate representing the respondent countered these arguments. He submitted that the petitioner had served from May to December 2014 with additional charge and was the authorized person for issuing payments. The Government had sanctioned the plantation of 1,70,000 seedlings in Coimbatore with Rs.33.66 lakhs allocated. Out of this, Rs.10,77,471/- was released under fraudulent circumstances.

The counter stated that only a small fraction of farmers received any amount, while the remainder was misappropriated. It was argued that the act of signing fraudulent vouchers and issuing cheques could not be considered as discharge of official duty, and thus did not require sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. Sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was duly obtained.

It was also argued that questions regarding the extent of the petitioner’s role and any potential defences were factual in nature and should be addressed during trial. Citing multiple Supreme Court precedents, the respondent stressed that quashing of proceedings at the pre-trial stage was unwarranted when prima facie materials existed.

The Court recorded that "the petitioner served as Forestry Extension Officer (Assistant Conservator of Forest) and he is a public servant." During the relevant period, the petitioner was overseeing implementation of the TCPL Scheme, which targeted plantation in private lands with government funding.

It was noted that "on verification, it was found the samplings transported by the beneficiaries on their own expense and the samplings also planted by the farmers in their lands on their own expense." Despite this, cheques were issued and funds were misappropriated.

"The petitioner/A1 and A2 hatched a conspiracy with A3, decided to claim the plantation charges from the Government," the Court stated. The cheques were drawn, entered into running account bills, and handed over to A3. Only Rs.76,210/- was paid to 48 farmers, with the balance misappropriated.

On the question of sanction, the Court observed that "the sanctioning authority after going through the entire statement of witnesses and documents collected, independently arrived at a satisfaction that the petitioner committed the offence along with other accused." Thus, sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was held to be valid.

The Court stated that the petitioner’s act "cannot be termed discharge of official duty. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot seek any protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C."

With respect to the judicial scope for quashing proceedings, it recorded, "The Trial Court is not supposed to adopt a strict hyper technical approach to sieve the complainant through a cull under or finest gauging of testing the ingredients of offence which are charges."

Also Read: “Fraud Cannot Be Cloaked as Tenancy”: Himachal Pradesh HC Upholds Cancellation of Mutation, Slams ‘Collusive Conspiracy’ to Evade Stamp Duty

"The points raised are the defence of the petitioner and the points raised by the petitioner are factual which has to be necessarily decided during trial," the Court observed.

The Court concluded: "In view of the above, no case is made out to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner and this Criminal Original Petition is liable to be dismissed." The matter was remitted back to the Trial Court for continuation of proceedings.

It was further directed that the "Trial Court to proceed with the trial and decide the case on its own merits independently uninfluenced with the observations made herein."

The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition connected with the matter was also closed.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For Petitioner: R. Shunmugasundaram, Senior Counsel for D. Senthur Kugan

For Respondent: S. Udayakumar, Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

Case Title: K. Sekar v. Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Coimbatore

Case Number: Crl.O.P.No.30592 of 2024

Bench: Justice M. Nirmal Kumar

[Read/Download order]