KIRPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KIRPAL Singh, petitioner, who at the material time was working as a Sub-Inspector in Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., (for short, Punsup) centre at Dunera, was brought to trial on the charge under Section 409, Indian Penal Code, before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Pathankot and having been found guilty thereunder, was sentenced to 2 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, in a considered judgment adverted to the prosecution case and upheld the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner. He has now come up in revision.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this revision are in a very narrow compass. While being posted as a Sub-Inspector in Punsup at Dunera centre, the accused collected an amount of Rs. 2269.93 from different shops of the Punsaup and those amounts were not deposited by him in the Bank. He thus mis-appropriated the amounts which belonged to the Government. When it was discovered that he had collected the aforementioned amount but had not deposited the same in the Bank, the present can against the accused was registered. It is said that during the investigation of the case, the accused was asked to give his specimen signatures but he refused to give his signatures. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses. When examined under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, the accused admitted the facts that he was posted as Sub-Inspector in Punsup at Dunera on 11.11.1977 and that it was the duty of the Inspector to collect money from the Punsup shops but denied the other allegations of the prosecution. He, however, led no evidence in defence.

(3.) THE next argument laboured with little persistence on behalf of the petitioner was that no prosecution can be launched against a government servant if he has committed any offence in the discharge of his official duty except with the previous sanction of the government by which he had been appointed. I find no substance in this contention. As regards the sanction of the competent authority as envisaged in Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it may be observed that defalcation or misappropriation of the property entrusted to a public servant is not part of his duties and in doing so he is not acting in the discharge of his duties and, therefore, the question of prior sanction for prosecution does not arise. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Harihar Prasad etc. v. State of Bihar, (1972) 3 SCC 89, negatived a similar contention by observing that it was not part of the duty of a public servant while discharging his official duties, to enter into a criminal conspiracy or to indulge in criminal misconduct and want of sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is therefore, no bar to a prosecution under Section 120-B read with Section 409, Indian Penal Code.