PARULSWAMI versus THE STATE OF MADRAS

Citation: [1967] 1 S.C.R. 201 · Decided: 29-08-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RAGHUBAR DAYAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
c 
D 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
P. ARULSWAMI 
v. 
THE STATE OF MADRAS 
August 29, 1966 
[V. RAMASWAMI, V. BHARGAVA AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.] 
Madras Vl/Jage Panchayats Act (Mad. Act X of 1960), s. 106--ln 
language sinlJJoT 10 s. 197 ( 1) Cr. P.C.-Sanclion of State Government for 
prosecution for offenc• under s. 409 J.P.C.-Whether requir.ed-Circums• 
ranees in which such sanction necessary. 
· 
The appellant, who was the Preside11t of a Pancbayat Board, 
was 
charged with an offence under s. 409, I.P.C. for not bringing to account 
in the book of the Phllchayat Board a sum of Rs. 4,000, belonging to the 
Board. The trial court was not satisfied that the prosecution bad proved 
the charge and therefore acquitted the appellant ' but, on appeal, 
the 
High Court accepted the prosecution evidence and convicted him. 
It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the proS<lCution against 
him was not maintainable for want of sanction by the State GO\-emment 
under s. 106 of the Madras Village Paiu:hayats Act (Mad. Act X of 1960); 
but the High Court rejected this contention. 
On appeal to this Court. 
HELD : Sanction of the State Government 
was not 
DP...Cessary for 
the prosecution of the appellant under s. 409, Indian Penal .Code. 
As in the case of s. 197(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which 
is in similar language to s. 106 of the Madras Act, it is not every offence 
committed by a public servant that requires 
sanction for 
prosecution; 
nor even every act done by him while be is actually engaged in the 
performance of his official duties; but if the act complained Qf is directlv 
concerned with his official duties so that, if questioned, it could bC 
claimed to have been done by virtue of the office, then sanction would 
be necessary. It is the quality of the act that is important and if it falls 
within the scope and range of bis official <luties the protection contemplated 
by .s. 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code will be attracted. An offence 
may be entirely unconnected with the official duty as such or it may be 
committed within the scope of the official duty. 
Where it is unconnected 
with the official duty ther~ can be .no protection. It is only when it is. 
either within the scope of the official duty or in excess Of it that the· 
protection is claimable. [205 D-FJ 
Cue law reviewed. 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION : Criminal 
Appeals 
Nos. 130 & 131 of 1964. 
Appeals by special leave from the Judgment . and order dated 
December 3, 1963 of the Madras High Court in Criminal Appeals. 
Nos. 380of1961 and 72 of 1962 respectively. 
201 
Ml4Sup.C.I./66'-14 
202 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[J 967] I S.C.R 
R. Ganapathy 
Iyer, for 
the appellant 
(in 
both 
the 
A 
appeals}. 
A. V. Rangam, for the respondent (in both the appeals). 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Ramaswami, J. 
Criminal Appeal No. 130 of 1964: 
This appeal is brought, by special leave, from the judgment 
of the Madras High Court dated December 3, 1963 in Criminal 
Appeal No. 380 of 1961 by which the appellant was convicted under 
s. 409, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprison-
ment for one year. 
The appellant was elected President of the Nerinjipet Panehayat 
Board on May 17, 1958. At that time he was a duly elected mem-
ber of the Board. It appears that a sum of Rs. 4,000 of the 
Board had l:e!n invested in four National Plan Savings Certi-
ficates in the Bhavani Post Office. 
It was alleged that the appel-
lant cashed them on February 11, 1959 and did not bring the amount 
in the account books of the Panchayat Board. 
The defence of 
the appellant was that he signed the certificates and handed them 
over to P.W. 4, the Deputy Panchayat Officer of the block within 
which the village was located. This was done by the appellant 
because P.W. 4 approached him and asked him that the Board 
should subscribe through him for small savings certificates for 
Rs. 7,000 just as the Panchayat had subscribed Rs. 
7,000 
through Tahsildar representing the Revenue Department. For 
that purpose P.W. 4 got Rs. 500 in cash on December 2, 1958 
and a cheque for Rs. 2.500 on February 9, 1959. It was the 
case of the appellant that P.W. 4 represented that along with this 
sum of Rs. 3,000 he would cash the National Plan Savings Certi-
ficates of the total value of Rs. 4,000 and purchase small savings 
.certificates for Rs. 7 ,000 that being his quota from the Narinjipct 
Panchayat. To enable P.W. 4 to make the purchase, the ap-
pellant endor

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.