SHAMBHOO NATH MISRA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

(2.) This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order of the learned single Judge of Allahabad High Court, made on September 31, 1995 in Criminal Revision No. 985 of 1993.

(3.) The appellant had laid a private complaint against R. D. Tripathi, the second respondent, for offences under Sections 409, 420, 465, 468, 477-A and 109, I.P.C., after examination, alleging that the second respondent and the Cashier had fabricated his signatures, drawn and misappropriated an amount of Rs. 443.90 which was due and payable to him. On the basis thereof, after recording his evidence and also the Court witness under Section 202, Cr. P. C., 1973, the Magistrate dismissed the complaint holding that the sanction under Section 197 of the Cr. P. C. was not obtained. Aggrieved by the order, the appellant went in revision before the High Court. The High Court recorded the finding that the second respondent was discharging his duties as a Government servant and was alleged to have misappropriated the amount in question by forging the signature of the appellant in the payment register. The High Court further observed that "the offence alleged to have been committed by the respondent is related in some manner with the discharge of his official duties. There is reasonable connection between the act and discharge of his official duty. Under these circumstances, sanction under Section 197, Cr. P. C. is necessary before prosecution of this accused." In support of it, the learned judge relied upon Hari Ram v. Emperor, 1939 FCR 159, Orills case (supra) and the case of S. B. Saha v. M. S. Kochhar, 1979 All Cri C 318 . The question is:whether the view taken by the trial Court as upheld by the High Court for the aforesaid reason is correct in law