SANKARANKUTTY MENON Vs. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICETRICHUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These cases raise an important and interesting question of law regarding the necessity for obtaining sanction of the State Government to prosecute either under S.132 or under S.197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) The petitioner in Crl. R.P. No. 238 of 1957 was charged under S.409 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code. He was the Head Accountant cum-cashier in the Office of the Assistant Supply Officer, Ernakulam and he was entrusted with a sum of Rs. 1,525-8-6 on 16th February, 1957, in his capacity as a public servant, for the purpose of disbursing that amount to one Padmanabha Prabhu, who supplied petrol to the Supply Department. He committed criminal breach of trust with respect to the said amount by dishonestly misappropriating the same or converting it to his own use and also committed falsification of accounts of the above Department by making false entries in the said accounts. On these allegations charges under S.409 & 477A of the Penal Code were brought against him. A preliminary objection was taken before the lower court that, as there was no previous sanction of the State Government, the complaint was liable to be dismissed. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate held that no sanction was necessary and the petitioner seeks to revise that order in this Criminal Revision Petition.

(3.) Crl. Ref. No. 24 of 1958 is by the Additional Sessions Judge of Parur under S.215 and 439, Criminal Procedure Code, to have the committal order in Sessions Case No. 43 of 1957 [P.E. No. 2 of 1957 of the Court of the First Class Magistrate, Alwaye] quashed by this Court. In this case the accused, who was a Dy. Ranger in the Forest Department, stood charged under S.409 and 477A of the Penal Code, for having released certain logs of timber without depositing the balance price amount to the credit of the Government and falsifying the account of the Timber Depot. After preliminary enquiry the 1st Class Magistrate committed him to stand his trial under S.409 and 466 of the Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge after considering the case came to the conclusion that the committal should have been under S.409 & 477A instead of S.409 & 466, IPC. But a preliminary objection having been taken before the learned Sessions Judge that there was no previous sanction of the State Government under S.197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Sessions Judge has referred the case to this Court for quashing the committal order. It may be noted that in this case the sanction to prosecute was subsequently obtained and the same was placed before the learned Sessions Judge and therefore the further question, whether a sanction obtained subsequent to the commencement of the prosecution is sufficient, also arises for decision in this case.