Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Being dissatisfied, the first respondent preferred Criminal Revision No. 359/2001 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Before the revisional court, the only contention that was raised pertained to non- obtaining of sanction under Section 197 CrPC. It was argued before the learned Single Judge that in view of the decisions in State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Budhikota Subbarao[1], Rakesh Kumar Mishra v. State of Bihar and others[2], Sankaran Moitra v. Sadhna Das and another[3], Om Kumar Dhankar v. State of Haryana[4], the requisite sanction having not been obtained, the trial was vitiated. On behalf of the Corporation as well as the State of Punjab, it was argued that the sanction under Section 197 CrPC was not necessary to prosecute the first respondent and to substantiate the said stand, reliance was placed on Dr. Lakshmansingh Himatsingh Vaghela v. Naresh Kumar Chadrrashanker Jah[5], N. Bhargavan Pillai (dead) by Lrs. and another v. State of Kerala[6], State of U.P. v. Paras Nath Singh[7], Raghunath Anant Govilkar v. State of Maharashtra[8] and Choudhury Parveen Sultana v. State of West Bengal[9].

6. The eventual conclusion recorded by the learned Single Judge is to the following effect:-

“Under normal circumstances, the offence under Sections 467/468/471 IPC may be of such a nature that requirement of obtaining sanction under Section 197 CrPC may not be called for. The offences in this case have been inter-

connected with the main offence alleged against the petitioner under Section 409 IPC and it would clearly indicate that these offences could not be separately treated or dealt with. Requirement of obtaining sanction would be needed for an offence under Section 409 IPC and the same may not be separated from the remaining offences”.

22. A survey of the precedents makes it absolutely clear that 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. We have already reproduced few passages from the impugned order from which it is discernible that to arrive at the said conclusion the learned Single Judge has placed reliance on the authority in B. Saha’s (supra). The conclusion is based on the assumption that the allegation is that while being a public servant, the alleged criminal breach of trust was committed while he was in public service. Perhaps the learned Judge has kept in his mind some kind of concept relating to dereliction of duty. The issue 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. As is noticeable he has observed 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 for launching the prosecution for the offence under Section 409 is a condition precedent. The approach and the analysis are absolutely fallacious. We are afraid, though the High Court has referred to all the relevant decisions in the field, yet, it has erroneously applied the principle in an absolute fallacious manner. No official can put forth a claim that breach of trust is connected with his official duty. Be it noted the three-Judge Bench in B. Saha (supra) has distinguished in Shreekantiah Ramayya Munipalli (supra) keeping in view the facts of the case. It had also treated the ratio in Amrik Singh (supra) to be confined to its own peculiar facts. The test to be applied, as has been stated by Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J. in the Constitution Bench in Matajog Dube (supra) which we have reproduced hereinbefore. The three-Judge Bench in B. Saha (supra) applied the test laid down in Gill’s case wherein Lord Simonds has reiterated that the test may well be whether the public servant, if challenged, can reasonably claim, that what he does, he does in virtue of his office.

26. In Md. Hadi Raja v. State of Bihar[34] the question arose whether Section 197 CrPC was applicable for prosecuting officers of the public sector undertakings or the Government companies which can be treated as State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The Court referred to Section 197 CrPC, noted the submissions and eventually held that the protection by way of sanction under Section 197 CrPC is not applicable to the officers of Government Companies or the public undertakings even when such public undertakings are ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution on account of deep and pervasive control of the government.