LexAMRIK SINGH versus THE STATE OF PEPSU.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
•955· Hans MUlltr of Nurenburg ,,. Suptrinten<knt) Presidency Jail, . Calcutta. and otherS' Bose J~ 1955 February 28 1302: SUPREME COURT REPORTS. [1955] that were raised · in the petition were not seriously piessed and as. they are of no substance we need not discuss them. . The petition fails and is dismissed. Petition dismissed. l\MRIK SINGH v. THE STATE OF PEPSU. [S. K. 'DAS, BHAGWATI arid VENKATAAAMA AYYAJ!. JJ.) " ' Criminal Procedure Code (Aci V·of 1898), s.-197(1)-Charge of ,.Jc criminal ~isappropriation against a public servant-Sanction for prosecution under s. 197(1) of the Code of Criminal .Procedure- W hen necessary-Whether every offence committed· by a public servant or every act done. b~ -him while .performing .official duties requires sanc- tion for prpsecution. It -is not every ·offence · •committed by a public servant · that retjui-res sanction for prpsecu\i.t;n. under s . .197(1} of the Code of Criminal Proct;dure . nor. eveµ every act done by him while he is actually engaged in µie performanCe of his official duties; but if the act compla.ined. of : is· direCtly concerned \vith his official duties so that, if queStionea, it c'ould b'e claimed to 'have been done by virtue of·the office, then. san<;tion. would .be necessanr; and that would be so, irrespective of whether it \Vas, iri fact, a proper discharge of his duties, ·because that ,.Would re:illy be a ··matter Of defence on the merits, which would have to be investiga'.ted at the· trial, and could not arise at the stage -of the grant of- sanction, which must precede the institution of the prosecution. Whether sanction is· ·necessary to Proseeute a .public servant on a charge of criminal .misappropriation, will depend qn whether the ..>- acts complained of hinge on }:iis duties as a public servant. If they do, then sanction i_s requis~te. But if· they are uncoqnected with such duties, then nb. sancti~n "is necessary._.. ·' · Hori Ram Singh Y •. Emperor ([1939] F.C.R. 159), H. H. B, Gill v. The King ([1948] L.R. ·75 LA. 41), Albert. West Meads v. The King '([1948] 'L.R. 75 I.A. 185), Phaniniira Chandra v. The King (['I949J L.R::76 LA>lO); 'R. W:· Math'ams v. "State°<jf West·B.engal ([.1955]. .l S.C:R. 2'16~:artd Shreekttntiah Ramayya· Munipalil v. The State of Bombay ([·1955-].:J .s.C.R:- 117.7),. referr<;d to.' CRIMINAL APPELLATE JuR1smcTmN: Criri:iirial Appeal• No:·48 of "195'11."·'"' ... · · "·· ··•""'"· ... .. - - ,:L.f S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1303 Appeal by Special Leave granted by the Supreme Court by its Order dated the 31st July 1953 from the Judgment and Order dated the 15th May 1953 of the High Court of Judicature for the State of Pepsu at Patiala in Criminal Appeal No. 140 of 1952 arising out of the Judgment and Order dated the 31st March 1952 of the Court of Magistrate 1st Class, Patiala in Challan Case No. 160/102 of 1951. fai Gopal Sethi, (Naunit Lal, with him) for the appellant. N. S. Bindra, (Porus A .. Mehta and P. G. Gokhale, with him) for the respondent. 1955. February 28. The Judgment. of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMA AYYAR J.-The appellant was a Sub-Divisional Officer in the . Public Works , Depart- ment, Pepsu, and was, at the material dates, in charge of certain 'works at a place called Karhali. It was part of ·his ·duties .to disburse the wages to the work~ men employed in the works, and the procedure usualc ly followed was that he drew the amount required from the treasury, and paid. the same to the emplo- yees against their signatures or thumb-impressions in the monthly acquittance roll. In the roll for· April 1951, one Parma was mentioned as a . khalasi (menial servant), and a sum o~ Rs. 51 shown as paid to him for: .his wages, the payment being vouched. by thumb- impression. The case .. of the prosecution was. that there was, in fact, no person of the name of. Parma, that the .. thumb-impression found in the , acquittance roll was. that of, the appellant himself, that he had included a fictitious name;· in tl;ie acquittance roll, with intent ~o himself draw the_ .amount, and· that. by this expedient he had received,!~· -;S,~ ,ap.d JJ?.isappropriated the same. . · ·. .. '" , ........ ·. : , ,. , . . .. The First-Class ·Magistrate "of Patiala; before whom the appellant was put up for trial;:. framed charges against him under section 465 of 'the ''Indian Penal Code ·for ·forging ·the thumb-itnpr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.