DARSHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in revision here is to the conviction of the petitioner Darshan Singh for offence under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rs. one thousand) imposed in respect thereof, on each count. The petitioner Darshan Singh was Head Clerk in the Audit Office of the Co-operative Societies Ludhiana, when he is said to have committed the offence leading to his conviction and sentence in this case. According to the prosecution, it was the duty of the petitioner to draw amounts of various bills from the Bank and to make entries in respect of these bills in the relevant cashbook. The petitioner was not, however, the Drawing and Disbursing Officer. He was in fact P.W. 1. Jagan Nath Sudhera. The conviction of the appellant is founded upon two bills-one being bill No. 234-P for Rs. 12988.62 Paise. Exhibit P4. This, bill was admittedly drawn by the petitioner and an entry with regard to it was made in the cashbook. The allegation is that by an over-writing the entry of Rs. 12988.62 Paise was changed to Rs. 12888.62 paise meaning thereby that this entry showed that receipt of a sum of Rs.100/- less that what was actually received. After the lodging of the first information report this sum of Rs. 100/- is said to have been deposited by the petitioner. The other incriminating bill is Exhibit PT for Rs. 5514.36 paise. This bill bears no number. It is said that this amount was withdrawn Tby the petitioner but no entry with regard to it was made in any cashbook implying thereby that it was misappropriated by the petitioner. The question that arises at the very out set is whether sanction was required in terms of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for the prosecution of the petitioner in respect of the offences charged. It was strongly urged by Mr. S.S. Nijjar, counsel for the petitioner that such sanction was indeed, an essential requirement, the non-fulfilment of which rendered the conviction of the petitioner unsustainable.

(2.) Before turning to the legal aspect of the point raised, on merits, the position that emerges is that, there is on record that testimony of P.W. 10 B.R.Sharma, Manager of the State Bank of India, with regard to the encashing of the bill Exhibit P 1. It was his statement that he had compared the signatures on this bill and opined that they were of the Drawing and Disbursing Officer i.e. P.W. 1 Jagan Nath Sudhera. This has, however, been denied by said Jagan Nath, Sudhera. No hand, writing expert has peep examined to give his opinion with regard to these disputed signatures, but a visual examination of them and their comparison with the admitted signatures of Mr. Jagan Nath Sudhera as they appear in the cash book, provide little occasion for assuming them to be forged. If this bill had indeed been signed by the Drawing and Disbursing Officer, the only offence that can be attributed to the petitioner in respect of this bill, is that he did not make any entry in the cash book and that he had misappropriated this amount thereby. The question would, thus, arise whether not making of such entry is to be taken as an omission in the discharge of his official duties? Similar considerations would arise with regard to the temporary embezzlement of Rs. 100/- in respect of the other bill Exhibit P4.

(3.) The law regarding sanction for prosecution under Section 197, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is now well settled. The Supreme Court in Amrik Singh v. State of Pepsu1 held that if the act complained of is directly concerned with the official duty of the accused so that, if questioned it could be claimed to have been done by virtue of the office, then sanction would be necessary. Further in Shreekantiah Ramayya Munipalli and another v. State of Bombay,2 the Court observed, it was not duty which the Court has to examine so much as the act, because of an official act can be performed in the discharge of official duty as well as in dereliction of it.