Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 19 August 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: State represented by Additional Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment, CBI, Anti‑Corruption Branch, Chennai; Respondent/Appellant: G. Janakiraman, retired Manager, Vessel Management Cell, National Institute of Ocean Technology (NIOT), Chennai.
  • Criminal Revision (Crl.R.C.No.1063 of 2023) sought to set aside the trial court’s discharge under IPC 120‑B/420; Criminal Appeal (Crl.A.No.1226 of 2022) sought to set aside the conviction and sentence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).
  • The original trial (XIII Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai, C.C.No.6 of 2023) convicted the 1st Accused under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) PC Act, sentencing him to three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 50,000, while discharging him from IPC 120‑B/420 for lack of sanction under Section 197 CrPC.
  • Allegations: While serving as Group Head/Manager, Vessel Management Cell (2002‑2007), the accused allegedly conspired with a foreign ship‑building company and its Managing Director to falsify certification of invoices submitted by M/s Vik Sandvik, causing wrongful loss to NIOT estimated at Rs 4,33,44,240.
  • Evidence examined: Prosecution PW 1‑18, Ex P1‑39; defence DW 1, Ex D1‑13. The trial court found the accused guilty on the basis of invoices Ex P6 and Ex P8, but acquitted on other invoices.
  • Key legal issue: Whether sanction under Section 197 CrPC and Section 19 PC Act was required. The trial court held sanction unnecessary for PC Act because the accused had resigned; the High Court referred to Supreme Court judgment in A. Srinivasulu v. State clarifying that post‑amendment (2018) Section 19(1)(a) requires sanction for a person who was employed at the time of the offence.
  • The High Court observed that the accused was not in service at the time of registration, filing of the final report, or cognizance, and that the prosecution failed to obtain the requisite sanction under Section 197 CrPC for the IPC offence and under Section 19 PC Act for the PC Act offence.
  • The Court also noted lack of material evidence proving actual loss to NIOT or pecuniary gain to the accused; invoices Ex P3‑P5 were correctly certified, and for Ex P6 and Ex P8 the certification was in accordance with the payment schedule of the agreement dated 11 February 2004.

Final Outcome

  • The conviction and sentence under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) PC Act dated 24 November 2022 are set aside; the appellant is acquitted of the PC Act charge.
  • The fine, if paid, shall be refunded to the appellant forthwith; any bail bonds executed are cancelled.
  • The earlier discharge order for IPC 120‑B/420 is affirmed.
  • The Criminal Revision filed by the CBI is dismissed as devoid of merit; the Criminal Appeal is allowed.
  • The connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Topics: Court Decision, Corruption Law, Sanction Requirements