SOHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. N. Dikshita, J. By means of this application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. Sohan Lal, the applicant has prayed for quashing the proceedings of Criminal case No. 968 of 1986- State v. Sohan Lal under Sections 420/218 IPC pending in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad and also for staying the proceedings in the case.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the applicant is employed as a peon (Work and aaj) in Sharada Sahayak Khand-39, 18 Circle, Irrigation Works, Irrigation Department, U. P. since 3-2-1976. The applicant was directed from time to time for the reconciliation of the cheque with the Bank.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant has strenuously submitted that the applicant is a government servant as enjoined under Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. The relevant provision is reporduced herein below: Section 21. * * * * "twelfth: Every person- (a) in the service or pay of the Government or remunerated by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty by the Government. " It has now to be extracted from the record as to whether the applicant is a government servant, or not and also whether while presenting the cheque for encashment before the State Bank of India, he was discharging his duties of a public servant as such. The applicant is admittedly an employee of Sharada Sahayak Khand-39 of 18 Circle Irrigation Works Irrigation Department, UP. It is thus clear that he is employed in the services of the State Government. LEARNED counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the applicant is a peon and had been directed by the Executive Engineer to get the cheque encashed. It is also manifest from the record and is not disputed that the Executive Engineer had sent the applicant for the encashment of the cheque. It is thus clear that the applicant was discharging his duties of a public servant at the behest and order of the Executive Engineer. Even in the past the appli cant on more than several occasions was deputed for this duty by the Execu tive Engineer concerned. There is no doubt that the duty assigned to the applicant Sohan Lal in getting the amount withdrawn after the encashment of the cheque was in the official discharge of his duties. The applicant is thus a public servant.