KANCHHEDILAL KORI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the applicant/petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.11.2009 passed by the 15th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur whereby Criminal Revision No.367/08 preferred against the order dated 1.8.2008 passed in Special Case No.4347/07 was rejected. The order dated 1.8.2008 was also challenged by the applicant/petitioner by which his application filed under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed. The applicant/petitioner has also prayed for quashing the proceeding of Special Case No.4347/07 for commission of offence punishable under Sections 409 and 120-B of IPC.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that during the period 8.10.2004 to 26.12.2005, the applicant/ petitioner was working as a Manager of the Managing Committee looking after the management of Ramlala Temple, Mehsaon. He received a sum of Rs.11,050/- towards the security amount in auction of land of that temple. The auction took place on 14.7.2005 and the applicant/ petitioner deposited the sum on 28.12.2005. He had also deposited a sum of Rs.8,500/- on 21.12.2005 in the Special Account No.121 of the District Cooperative Bank Rewa. A complaint was received to the State Economic Crime Investigation Bureau, Bhopal relating to the defalcation done by the various office bearers of the Managing Committee of that particular temple. Initially the temple was managed by one Mahant Rameshwar Das and thereafter one Akhand Narayan Pandey was made Secretary to the Managing Committee. Akhand Narayan Pandey committed the crime of defalcation and breach of trust. Thereafter the present applicant/ petitioner was appointed in place of Akhand Narayan Pandey being Tahsildar Tahsil Gurh. After due investigation, challan was filed before the competent Court.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the application. He submits that in the case of "Sambhunath Mishra Vs. State of UP", [1997(2) MPWN 131] the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that misappropriation of public property done by the public servant does not fall within the duty of the public servant. Similarly, he has also placed his reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Prakash Singh Badal Vs. State of Punjab", (AIR 2007 SC 1274) in which it is held that during the duty of the public servant if he has done some act or omission, which was not connecting with his duties, then no sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is required. Under such circumstances, it is prayed that the present application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. may be dismissed.