MOHINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE primary question which arises for determination in this revision is; whether in a prosecution under Section 406 Indian Penal Code, against a Sarpanch, it is necessary to obtain sanction of the State Government under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Code).

(2.) MOHINDER Singh petitioner who was a Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Saketri was authorised vide resolutions dated May 24, 1967 and August 6, 1969 to withdraw the amount of Rs. 12,500/- from the post Office, which had been deposited to purchase 12 years National Defence Certificates. In the present case, however, we are concerned with five such National Defence Certificates of the value of Rs. 500/- each. These were encashed by the petitioner on August 12. 1969 and in this way he was entrusted with a sum Rs. 2500/- belonging to the Panchayat. It is alleged that he misappropriated the said amount inconspiracy with, Babu Ram and Kartara, members of the said Panchayat. The legal machinery was set into motion against the petitioner and his companions on a letter dated January 10, 1975, written by the Deputy Commissioner. Ambala and addressed to the Superintendent of Police. Ambala. This resulted in the registration of the present case against the petitioner and others. After necessary investigation, they were sent up for trial. The Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala City, framed separate charges against Mohinder Singh and his companions punishable under Sections 406 and 120-B, Indian Penal Code. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses. The accused denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false complicity in the case, but led no evidence in defence. Kartara and Babu Ram accused were acquitted of the charges while Mohinder Singh petitioner was convicted under S 406, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to 2 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. He was, however, acquitted of the charge under Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala in an elaborate and lucid judgment upheld his conviction and sentence and hence the revision.

(3.) THE petitioner, who was the Sarpanch at the alleged time of occurrence, is a public servant admits of no dispute. As per Punjab Government Notification No 11508/LB-53110558 dated 6-5-1954, the powers of the Government under Section 102 of the Gram Panchayat Act (for short the Act) have been delegated to the Director of Panchayats. It is thus apparent that the Sarpanch is now removable from his office by an authority lesser than the Government. On a plain reading of Section 102 of the Act, it seems to me that the petitioner not being removable from his office by sanction of the Government, no previous sanction was essential under Section 197 of the Code. The revision petition is otherwise bound to fail on this point because the act of misappropriation was not one which was committed in the discharge of the public duties performed by the petitioner. As observed by Lord Simonds in H.H.B. Gill v. The King, AIR 1948 P.C. 128 :