RAJ KUMAR GAUR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In June, 1979, the petitioner was Administrator, Municipality Jind. The Town Improvement Trust, Jind, stood abolished in June, 1979. The petitioner as Administrator, Municipality, Jind, also looked after the working of the Town Improvement Trust, Jind. He took an advance of Rs. 25,000/- from the Cashier of the Improvement Trust for the purchase of fluorescent tubes. He personally visited Delhi and purchased fluroscent tubes (Phillips make) worth Rs. 43025.86. Later on it was found that the fluroscent tubes purchased were spurious and their market price was far less than the genuine Phillips tubes. The matter was reported to the police who, after completion of the investigation challenged the petitioner. The petitioner has been charge-sheeted under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code. The petitioner submitted an application in the trial Court praying therein that in the absence of sanction under section 197, Criminal Procedure Code, the criminal proceedings against him be dropped. The trial court dismissed the application vide order dated May 21, 1983. The petitioner has filed the present petition under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, praying that the order of the trial Court dated May 21, 1983, be quashed and the criminal proceedings pending against him dropped.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that fluroscent tubes were purchased by the petitioner as Administrator, Municipality, Jind. The lapse, if any, on the part of the petitioner in the matter of purchase of fluroscent tubes was committed by him in that capacity and as such he cannot be prosecuted without the requisite sanction under section 197, Criminal Procedure Code. The contention is without merit.

(3.) It has been held in K. Satwant Singh V. The State of Punjab, 1960 AIR(SC) 266 that the act must bear such relation to the duty that the public servant could lay a reasonable but not a pretended or fanciful claim, that he did it in the course of the performance of his duty. Some offences cannot by their very nature be regarded as having been committed by public servants while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their official duty. Where a public servant commits the offence of cheating or abets another so as to cheat, the offence committed by him is not one while he is acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, as such offence has no necessary connection between it and the performance of the duties of a public servant, the official status furnishing only the occasion or opportunity for the commission of the offence.