2016 (6) TMI 1138 - SC - Indian Laws

Conviction of an offences punishable under Section 409/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 - whether the High Court has correctly accepted the submission advanced on behalf of the first respondent who was convicted for offences punishable under Section 409/467/468/471 of IPC and had been awarded sentence for each of the offences with the stipulation that they would run concurrently that he being an employee of the appellant Corporation is a public servant and the trial had commenced without obtaining sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC) and hence the trial in entirety was invalid and as a result the conviction and sentence deserved to be set aside? Held that - A survey of the precedents makes it absolutely clear that there has to be reasonable connection between the omission or commission and the discharge of official duty or the act committed was under the colour of the office held by the official. If the acts omission or commission is totally alien to the discharge of the official duty question of invoking Section 197 CrPC does not arise. We have already reproduced few passages from the impugned order from which it is discernible that to arrive at the said conclusion the learned Single Judge has placed reliance on the authority in B. Saha s (1979 (7) TMI 242 - SUPREME COURT). The conclusion is based on the assumption that the allegation is that while being a public servant the alleged criminal breach of trust was committed while he was in public service. Perhaps the learned Judge has kept in his mind some kind of concept relating to dereliction of duty. The issue was basically entrustment and missing of the entrusted items. There is no dispute that the prosecution had to prove the case. But the public servant cannot put forth a plea that he was doing the whole act as a public servant. Therefore it is extremely difficult to appreciate the reasoning of the High Court. As is noticeable he has observed that under normal circumstances the offences under Sections 467 468 and 471 IPC may be of such nature that obtaining of sanction under Section 197 CrPC is not necessary but when the said offences are interlinked with an offence under Section 409 IPC sanction under Section 197 for launching the prosecution for the offence under Section 409 is a condition precedent. The approach and the analysis are absolutely fallacious. We are afraid though the High Court has referred to all the relevant decisions in the field yet it has erroneously applied the principle in an absolute fallacious manner The irresistible conclusion is that the respondents are not entitled to have the protective umbrella of Section 197 CrPC and therefore the High Court has erred in setting aside the conviction and sentence on the ground that the trial is vitiated in the absence of sanction. Consequently we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court and remit the matter to the High Court to decide the revision petition in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the High Court correctly accepted the submission that the trial was invalid due to the absence of sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC.
2. Whether the respondent, being an employee of a government-owned corporation, is considered a public servant requiring sanction for prosecution.
3. The applicability of Section 197 CrPC to the case at hand.
4. The necessity of sanction under Section 197 CrPC for prosecuting the respondent for offences under Sections 409, 467, 468, and 471 IPC.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Trial Without Sanction:
The primary issue was whether the trial of the respondent, who was convicted under Sections 409, 467, 468, and 471 IPC, was invalid due to the absence of sanction under Section 197 CrPC. The High Court had accepted the argument that the trial was vitiated for lack of sanction, leading to the conviction and sentence being set aside. The Supreme Court analyzed the necessity of sanction under Section 197 CrPC, which protects public servants from vexatious proceedings for acts done in the discharge of official duties. The Court emphasized that the act must be directly connected with official duties to require sanction.

2. Status of the Respondent as a Public Servant:
The respondent was an employee of a government-owned corporation, and the High Court had ruled that he was a public servant as per Section 21 of IPC, thus requiring sanction for prosecution. The Supreme Court examined whether the respondent's actions, which included misappropriation and tampering with records, were done in the discharge of official duties. The Court concluded that the nature of the offences (criminal breach of trust and forgery) did not fall within the scope of official duties, thus not necessitating sanction under Section 197 CrPC.

3. Applicability of Section 197 CrPC:
The Supreme Court referred to various precedents to determine the applicability of Section 197 CrPC. It noted that sanction is required only when the offence is directly related to the discharge of official duties. The Court cited cases such as Matajog Dube, Arulswami, and B. Saha to illustrate that the act must bear a reasonable connection to official duties. The Court concluded that the respondent's acts of misappropriation and forgery were not acts done in the discharge of official duties, thereby not requiring sanction under Section 197 CrPC.

4. Necessity of Sanction for Specific Offences:
The Supreme Court analyzed whether sanction was necessary for prosecuting the respondent under Sections 409, 467, 468, and 471 IPC. It referred to previous judgments, including State of H.P. v. M.P. Gupta and Parkash Singh Badal, which held that offences like cheating and forgery do not typically fall under acts done in official capacity. The Court reiterated that the respondent's actions could not be justified as part of his official duties, thus negating the need for sanction.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in setting aside the conviction and sentence due to the absence of sanction under Section 197 CrPC. The Court ruled that the respondent's actions were not inextricably linked to his official duties, and therefore, sanction was not required. The judgment and order of the High Court were set aside, and the matter was remitted to the High Court to decide the revision petition in accordance with the law.