Ajay Rastogi JUDGMENT
U.U. Lalit, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal challenges the order dated 13.03.2020 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, in Criminal Appeal No. 2637 of 2011.
3. Sandur Gram Panchayat, Sandur, District Bellary, Karnataka and the Appellant, who at the relevant time was Chief Officer of said Gram Panchayat, were Accused of having committed offences punishable Under Sections 43 and 44 of The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 ("the Water Act" for short).
4. By judgment and order dated 28.04.2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sandur, in CC No. 375 of 2002, the Appellant was found guilty of the offences with which he was charged and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- on both the counts. The sentences were to run concurrently.
5. The appeal preferred by the Appellant was allowed by the II-Additional Sessions Judge, Bellary by his order dated 19.06.2010 only on the ground that being a public servant, the Appellant was entitled to the protection Under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code" for short) and in the absence of requisite sanction, his prosecution was invalid.
6. The original complainant (Karnataka State Pollution Control Board) being aggrieved, filed Criminal Appeal No. 2637 of 2011 before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. By its judgment and order dated 13.03.2020, the High Court set-aside the view taken by the lower Appellate Court. Since the matter was not considered by the lower Appellate Court on merits, the High Court remitted the matter back to the lower Appellate Court for fresh consideration on merits.
7. During the course of its judgment, the High Court relied upon the decision rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 30610 of 2008 (V.C. Chinappa Goudar v. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and Anr.) and came to the conclusion that the protection Under Section 197 of the Code would not be available.
8. We heard Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, learned Advocate for the Appellant, Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, learned Advocate for the original Complainant and Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General who ably assisted us at our request.
9. The decision relied upon by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 30610 of 2008 was directly under challenge before this Court in V.C. Chinnappa Goudar v. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board MANU/SC/0320/2015 : (2015) 14 SCC 535. In that decision, this Court considered the scope and applicability of Section 48 of the Water Act and found that "the Head of the Department" by virtue of deeming provision would be deemed to be guilty and, as such, the protection Under Section 197 of the Code would stand excluded. The relevant discussion on the point was:
6. As against the above