P. Hanumantha Rao vs Kaki Venkata Rao and another

This revision is directed against the judgment dated 31-1-1996 in CC No. 96/1993 on the file of the III Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Ongole.

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Naguluppalgpadu Police Station filed charge-sheet against the revision petitioner Kaki Venkatarao, who was working as Sub-Post Master, Naguluppalapadu Sub-Post Office, for the offences under Sections 409, 477A and 463 IPC alleging that on 6-9-1989 the Asst. Superintendent of Post Offices inspected Sub-Post Office and found that the accused fabricated and falsified the accounts and misappropriated the amounts deposited by the customers.

On behalf of prosecution, 13 witnesses were examined as P.Ws 1 to 13 and marked Exs, P-1 to P-171. The defence of the petitioner was of a total denial and none were examined on his behalf.

The learned Magistrate on considering the material on record found that there is material to show that the respondent is guilty of the offence under Sections 409 and 477A IPC, but as the prosecution failed to obtain sanction to prosecute the accused, as contemplated u/s 197 Cr.PC hence, found him not guilty and acquitted.

Aggrieved by the said judgment, the defacto complainant filed this revision.

The learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submits that admittedly the accused was working as Sub-Post Master at Naguluppalapadu Post Office and it is not his official duty, as a public servant, to fabricate and falsify the accounts and misappropriate the amounts deposited by the customers and hence, the question of obtaining sanction, as contemplated u/s 197 Cr. PC, to prosecute the accused does not arise and he relied on a decision Shambhoo Nath Misra Vs. State of U.P. and others, .

But the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that when admittedly the respondent is a public servant and it is alleged that he fabricated and falsified the accounts while discharging his official duty as such, the sanction as provided u/s 197 Cr.PC is required to prosecute the accused and the lower Court has rightly acquitted the accused.

It is not in dispute that the respondent herein was working as Sub-Post Master at Naguluppalapadu post office and it is alleged that while working in such capacity he fabricated and falsified the accounts and misappropriated the amounts deposited by the customers. It appears from sub-section (1) of Section 197 Cr.P.C.that when any person who is a public servant, not removable from his office, 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 of the appropriate Government or authority. The object of the Section is to protect the public servants against irresponsible frivolous or vexatious proceedings for the acts done in discharge of official duty and to see that no prosecution is started unless there is some foundation for the charges alleged against him.

It is relevant to mention that it is not the duty of the Sub-Post Master, the respondent herein, to fabricate and falsify the accounts or misappropriate the amounts deposited by the customers and it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination it is integrally connected or inseparably interlinked with the crime committed in discharge of his official duty. The protection envisaged u/s 197 Cr.PC is only with regard to the acts complained of must be in relation to the discharge of the official duty but not otherwise.

The facts leading to Shambhoo Nath Misra''s case are that the accused therein and cashier fabricated the signature of the complainant, drawn and misappropriated a sum of Rs. 443.90 Ps payable to him and the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint holding that the sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C was not obtained. The matter was carried to the High Court aggrieved by the said judgment and the High Court recorded finding that the offence alleged to have been committed by the respondent is related in some manner with the discharge of his official duty and there is reasonable connection between the act and discharge of his official duty and hence, sanction u/s 197 Cr.PC is necessary before initiating prosecution against the accused.

The matter was carried to the Apex Court and their Lordship in para 5 of the judgment held as under;

".. The question is: when the public servant is alleged to have committed the offence of fabrication of records or misappropriation of public fund etc. can be said to have acted in discharge of his official duties? It is not the official duty of the public servant to fabricate the false record and misappropriate the public fund etc. in furtherance of or in the discharge of his official duties. The official capacity only enables him to fabricate the record or misappropriate the public fund etc. It does not mean that it is integrally connected or inseparably interlinked with the crime committed in the course of same trans-action, as was believed by the learned Judge, Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the view expressed by the High Court as well as by the trial Court on the question of sanction is clearly illegal and cannot be sustained."

Therefore, in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court that it is not part of the official duty of the respondent while working as Sub-Post Master at Naguluppalapadu Post Office to fabricate and falsify the accounts and misappropriate the public fund, hence, the question of obtaining sanction to prosecute him as envisaged u/s 197 Cr.PC does not arise. Therefore, the finding of the learned Magistrate is unsustainable.

In the result, the revision is allowed setting aside the judgment of the trial Court and the matter is remanded to the lower Court with a direction to dispose of the same afresh in accordance with law.