LexBAIJNATH GUPTA AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
210
BAIJNATll GUPTA AND OTllER4'
v.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
May 1, 1965
[A. K. SARKAR, M. HIOAYATULLAH AND Y. RAMASWAMI, JJ.J
Code of Cri111i11a/ Procedure (Ac1 5 of 1898), s. 197( I )-Sanction for
prosecution of public servant for offence com1niued in the discharge of
official duty-Public ser\•ant <·hargt•d under ss. 477A '1nd 409 l.P.C.-Son<:-
tion whether required.
G \Vas Chief Accountant-i-·u111-0fticc Superintendent in the Electric Supply
Undertaking run by the G()vernment of the erstwhile state of Madhy•
llhera1.
11c ,,·as pro::,ecutcJ along w·ith K, an assistant Superintendent
in the santc oflicr.:, for criminal breach of trust of money v."hich had hccn
entrusted to them.
l'hcy l'-·ere also ch;lfge<l vdth malting false cntric.."l in
the accounts. l'hc proscculion case v.-.ts that :-iun1s amounting to Rs. 2 l ,450
wore falsely shown in the accounts as having been sent to the trelsury but
were not actually deposited there.
Further, a sum of Rs. 10,000 had
been falsely shown on the debit side io cover the c~traction of that sum hy
K, the said entry ha\"ing bczn later on cancelled by G. G v.·as con\·icted
by the trial court under s. 477A read with s. 109
and under s. 409 of
the lndi~1n Pen;1l Code. The lligh {·oun dismbsc<l his ~!ppcal. By spcchil
leave he .lppcl.llcd to this Court.
It Y.'as conh .. "fldcd on behalf of the appellant th<tt he y,·as a pulllic
servant and lhe alleged offences, if committc..>d hy him. were cornmiucd
ill. the discharge of his officiJl duty and ihercforc his trial ~1nd convictio:i
for the aJlcg:xl offences \\';10, had on account of prior sanction not having
been obtained under s. 197( 1) of the COOc of Criminal Procedure.
HELO: S;cnc•ion under s. 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Proc.,dure
was neces..o;ary for the prosecution of the appellant for the offence under
s. 477A/ J99 of lhe Indian Penal Code because it was committed v..·iihin
the scope of ofiicial duties though in dereliction or them. [223F]
A
8
c
D
}'er lliday~1tull;:1h and Rama.<;\Varni, JJ. It is not every offence commi-
F
ttea by a public "crvant th:i.t requires sanction for prosecution under s.
197 (I) of the Criminal Procedure Code, nor every act done by him while
he is engaged in the perfonnanee of his official duties; but if the ect
complained of is <lircclly concerned "ith his official duties so that, ir
qUC8tiooed, il could be claimed to have been done hy virtue of his office
then sanction \\'OUld he necessary.
ll is the quality of th" act that is
importanl and if it fa11s \vithin the ~pe and range of his official dutie"
the protection contemplal'cd by s. 197 of the Criminal Procedure Cooe
G
will he a1tractctl. [223 A-<!
Applying the principle to the present ca~e the sanction of the State
Government ,,·ac; not ne~c;ary for the prosecution of the appellant under
s. 409 or rhc Indian Penal C.ode bccauc;e the act of crimin<'.11 misappropria-
tion '"';is not commi!tcd hy lhc appcllan1 \l.·hi!c he \Vas acting: or purporting
to act in discharee of his official dutic~ and that offence had no direct
connection with t.he duties of the appellant as a public servant, and the
11
official stalu<: of the appella!lt only furnished the appellant wilh :tn occasion
or .an opportunity of commi1ting the offence. [221E)
Sa1ivan1 Singh V. S1alt' of Pun_iah. rJ960} 2 S.C.R. 89. followed.
-
•
•
•
•
•
A
B
c
D
BAIJNATH GUPTA v. STATE (Sarkar, .T.)
211
Hori Ram Singh v. Emperor, [1939] F.C.R. 159,
Gill v. The King,
[1948] F.C.R. 19 and Om Parkash Gllpta v .State of U.P. [1957] S.C.R.
423, relied on.
Amrik Singh v. State of Pepsu, [19551 1 S.C.R. 1302, referred to.
Per Szrkar, J. \Vhcthcr an offence \\.:as committed in the course of
official duty will depend on the facts of each case. The test is whether the
public servant, if challenged, can reasonably claiin that what he did he
did in virtue of his office. [213 G-H; 215 C-Dl
Hori Rani Singh v. The Crolvn, [1939] F.C .. R. 159, Shreekantiah
Ramayya Munipalli v. State of Bombay, [195511 S.C.R. 1177 and Gil/ v.
King. [19481 F.C.R. 19, r·ofcrred to.
The facts of the present case could not be distinguished from those
in Amrik Si11gh's case.
The appellant when charged with the defalcation
of RB. 21,450 could have reasonably said that he sent the amounts to the
treasury as the accounts showed, and that would have been an act in the
performance of his official duty.
In respect of the sum of Rs. 10,000 he
oouldExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.