PUNJAB STATE WAREHOUSING CORP. versus BHUSHAN CHANDER & ANR.

Citation: [2016] 4 S.C.R. 537 · Decided: 29-06-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 4 S.C.R. 537 
PUNJAB STATE WAREHOUSING CORP. 
v. 
BHUSHAN CHANDER & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 159 of2016) 
JUNE29,2016 
[DIPAK MISRA AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.) 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 197 - Sanction before 
prosecution of public .servant- u/ss. 409146714681471 of Penal Code 
- Conviction by trial court as well as appellate court - In revision, 
High Court held the trial vitiated.on account of non-obtaining of 
sanction u/s.197 - On appeal, held: In order to invoke s.197, there 
has to be a, reasonable connection between the omission or 
commission and the discharge of official duty - In the facts of the 
case, the alleged criminal breach of trust cannot be said to have 
been committed while in public service - No official can put forth a 
claim that breach of trust is connected with his official duty - Hence, 
in the present case sanction uls. 197 was not necessary. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. No sanction is needed to launch the prosecution 
for the offence punishable under Section 409 IPC. There has to 
be reasonable connection between the omission or commission 
and the discharge of official duty or the act committed was under 
the colour of the office held by the official. If the acts omission or 
commission is totally alien to the discharge of the official duty, 
question of invoking Section 197 CrPC does not arise .. [Para 22) 
[552-A-B) 
Matajog Dube v. HC. Bahri AIR 1956 SC 44 : 1955 
SCR 925 - followed. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Om Prakash Gupta v. State of U.P. AIR 1957 SC 458 : 
1957 SCR 423; P. Arulswa111i v. State of Madras AIR 
1967 SC 776 : 1967 SCR 201 - relied on. 
G 
Shreekantiah Ramayya Munipalli v. State of Bombay 
AIR 1955 SC 287 : 1955 SCR 1177; A111rik Singh v .. 
State of Pepsu AIR 1955 SC 309 : 1955 SCR 1302; R. 
W. Mathams v. State of Wesi Bengal AIR 1954 SC 455 
: 1955 SCR 238 - referred to. 
· 
H 
537 
538 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016) 4 S.C.R. 
Hori Ram Singh v. Emperor 1939 FCR 159 (AIR 1939 
FC 43); !f.HB. Gill v. The KinR 1948 FCR 19 : (AIR 
1948 PC 128); Albert West Meads v. The Kin,; AIR 1948 
PC 156 - referred to. 
· 
2. The issue in the present case was basically entrustment 
and missing of the entrusted items. There is no dispute that the 
prosecution had to prove the case. But the public servant cannot 
put forth a plea that he was doing the whole act as a public servant. 
Therefore, it is extremely difficult to appreciate the reasoning of 
the High Court that the alleged criminal breach of trust was 
committed while he was in public service. [Para 22] (552-C-D] 
3. The High Court had o.bserved that under normal 
circumstances the offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC 
may be of such nature that obtaining of sanction under Section 
197 CrPC is not necessary but when the said offences are 
interlinked with an offence under Section 409 IPC sanction under 
Section 197 Cr.P.C for launching the prosecution for the offence 
under Section 409 IPC is a condition precedent. The approach 
and the analysis are absolutely fallacious. No official can put forth 
a claim that breach of trust is connected with his official duty. It 
cannot be said that in the obtaining factual matrix, sanction under 
Section 197 CrPC was necessary. (Paras 22 and 23] (552-D-F; 
553-A] 
4. The respondents arc not entitled to have the protective 
umbrella of Section 197 CrPC and, therefore, the High Court 
has erred in setting aside the conviction and sentence on the 
ground that the trial is vitiated in the absence of sanction. [Para 
28] (554-D-E] 
State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Budhikota Subbarao 1993 
(2) SCR 311 : (1993) 3 SCC 339; Shambhoo Nath Misra 
v. State of U.P. 1997 (2) SCR 1139 : (1997) 5 SCC 
326; State of Kera/a v. V. Padmanabhan Nair 1999 (3) 
SCR 864 : (1999) 5 SCC 690; State of HP. v. M.P. 
Gupta 2003 (6) Suppl. SCR 541 : (2004) 2 sec 349; 
Parkash Singh Badal and another v. State of Punjab 
and others 2006 (10) Suppl. SCR 197 : (2007) 1 SCC 
1; Choudhury Parveen Sultana v. State of West Bengal 
and another 2009 (1) SCR 99 : (2009) 3 SCC 398; 
Bhagwan Prasad Srivastava v. N.P. Mishra 1971 (1) 
PUNJAB STATE W AREHOUSl).IG CORP. v. BHUSHAN 
CHANDER & ANR. 
SCR .317 : (1970) 2 SCC 56 - relied on. 
Rakesh Kumar Mishra v. State of Bihar and others 
(2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 432; Sankaran Moitra v. Sadhna 
Das and another (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 358; Om Kumar 
Dhankar v. State of Haryana (2007) 3 RCR (Criminal) 
496; Dr. Lakshmansingh Himatsingh Vaghela v.

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