LexMANOHAR NATH KAUL versus STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
MANOHAR NATH KAUL
v.
STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR'
April 19, 1983
[0.A. DESAI AND RANGANATH MISRA, JJ.]
Crin1inal Procedure Code-s. 197 (1)- Public Servant charged wlth the
offence of cheating-When sanction for prosecution necessary?
Section 197 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that when a
public servant is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him
while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties no court
shall take cognizance of such offence without the previous sanction of the
appropriate govern_ment.
The appellant. who was Regional
Offi~er of the Directorate of Field
Publicity of the Governn1ent of India, travelled by air by obtafning air tickets
in lieu of exchange orders. Under the rules, the cost of the~e tickets was
requir~d to be ex.::luded from the T.A. bills. On the allegation that the appel-
lant submitted T.A. bills including the cost of these tickets and received pay-
ment for the same, a prosecttion report was submitted against him for the
offence of cheatirig under s. 420, l.P.C.
The~ appellant pleaded that in the
absence of sanction under s. 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the
prosecution was not maintainable. Trial Court rejected the contention. High
Coutt upheld the order in revision.
On appeal the appellant contended that the furnishing of the bills and
the drawing of the allowance were integrally connected with his status of being
a public servant and must, therefore, be taken to be covered by sub-s. (1) of s.
197.
Dislnissing the appeal,
A
B
c
D
E
F
HELD : The appellant was not entitled to claim'~ the protection of S.
G
197 (!). [799 a, 800 A]
The umbrella of protection under s. 197(1) is av~ilable to a public servant
in respect of offences alleged to have been committed while acting or purpor-"l-
ting to act in the discharge of his official duty. A public servant can only be
said to act or to purport to act in the discharge of his official ·duty, if his act
is such as to lie within the scope of his official duty. The test may well be whe-
ther the public servant, if challenged, can reasonably, claim that, what he does,
he does in virtue of his office, [793 G, 797 B-D)
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
792
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1983) 2 s.c.R.
If the acts complained of are so integra11y connected with the duties
attaching to the office as to be inseparable from them, then sanction under
s.197(1) would be necessary; but if there was no necessary connection between
them and the-performance of those duties, the official status furnishing only
the occasion or opportunity for the acts, then no sanction would be required.
I
[795 B-C]
Where a public servant co~n1its the offence of cheating or abets another
to cheat, the offence committed by him is not one while he is acting or pur ..
porting to act in the discharge· of his official_ duty, as such offence has no
necessary connection behveen it and the performance of the duties of a public
servant. [799 F]
, ·
Srivastava v. Misra, [1970] 2 S.C.C. 56; An1rik Singh v. State of Pepsu,
[1955] I S.C.R. 1302; K. Satwant Singh v. The State of Punjab, [1960] 2 S.C.R.
89; Baijnath Gupta & Ors. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, [1966] I S.C.R. 210;
Hori Ram Singh v. EmperJr, [1939] F.C.R. 159; Bakhshish Singh Dhaliwal v.
State of Punjab, [1967] I S.C.R. 211; Hariha1 Prasad etc. v. State of Bihar,
[1972] 3 S.C.C. 89; B. Saha & Ors. v. M.S. Kochar, [1980] I S.C.R. Ill,
referred to.
In the instant case, drawing of T .A. bills cannot be said to have been
directly and reasonab1Iy c;nnected with appellant's duty as Regional Officer of
the DireCtorate and the official status furnished the opportunity for doing the
acts whic.:h co-i:istitute ingredients of the offence. [799 _I-I]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JuR1so1cnoN : Criminal Appeal No.
677 of 1680.
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and ·Order dated
the 7th August, 1980 of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court in
Criminal Revision No. 6 of 1979. ·
T.C. Mehta and Meera Agarwal for the Appellant.
Alta/ Ahmed for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was·delivered by
RANGANATH MISRA, J. Jn this appeal by special leave, the
short question for consideration is, if sanction under section· 197,
Code of Criminal Procedure ('Code' for short) is necessary for the
prosecution of the apJ?ellant for an offence of cheating punishable
under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code .
. Appellant was Regional OffiExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.