M K ISSAC CHANDY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M.K. Issac, who is the first accused in CC Nos. 90, 303 and 451 of 1994 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ranni is the petitioner in all the three revisions. He was a Forest Range Officer who retired from service on 31.3.1990. Vigilance investigation was instituted against him in 1986. On the basis of the investigation, he along with another was charge sheeted to face the trial for offences punishable under S.465, 468, 471, 477 A read with S.34 IPC. He filed an application in all the cases in which he prayed that charge against him may be quashed for want of sanction and also on the ground of limitation. The court below dismissed the applications. The challenge is against those orders.

(2.) Counsel contended that the prosecution has no legs to stand on for want of sanction under S.197 (1) Cr.P.C. A copy of the First Information Statement was made available to me. in the F.I. statement it is specifically stated that the accused committed offence by misusing his official position. According to the prosecution, he had defalcated the amounts which belong to the Government by obtaining false and bogus receipts and forged vouchers from third parties. The court below while dismissing the application stated that commission of an offence cannot be said to be part of his official duty and so it cannot be said that the action complained of is done in the course of discharge of his official duty.

(3.) I am afraid the conclusion arrived at by the court below is not sustainable. Going by S.197(1) Cr. P.C. sanction is required for prosecuting an officer of the Government in respect of the offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. There is a bar in taking cognizance of the offence in the absence of sanction in a case where sanction is required. The point was considered in the decision reported in Ramayya v. State of Bombay ( AIR 1955 SC 287 ) and held that the provision regarding sanction cannot be construed too narrowly. If S.197 Cr.P.C. is construed too narrowly, it can never be applied, for it is no part of an official's duty to commit an offence and it never can be. On a reading of Para.18 and 19 of the decision, it is clear that sanction is necessary for prosecuting an officer who has committed the offence in the discharge of his official duty. It is stated therein that provisions contained in S.197 are attracted when the allegation is that the accused misused his official position and thereby committed the offence. Such action cannot be said to be unconnected with the discharge of his official duty. The decision reported in Somchand Sanghvi v. Bhusan Chakravarty ( AIR 1965 SC 588 ) also comes to the rescue of the petitioner. The Director of Inspection and Audit and Others v. Sri C.L Subramanian ( JT 1994 (6) SC 50 ) wherein the Supreme Court considered whether sanction under S.197 Cr.P.C. is required to prosecute an officer for an offence punishable under S.500 IPC based on the statement in an affidavit made in the course of discharge of his official duty. The Supreme Court came to the conclusion that sanction is required as the statement which gave rise to the filing of the complaint was filed in discharge of his official duty.