9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Necessity of sanction under Section 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for prosecution. 2. Sufficiency of evidence to establish offences under Sections 465 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Justification for the High Court's reversal of the trial Magistrate's acquittal. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Necessity of Sanction under Section 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for Prosecution: The appellant argued that the prosecution was illegal due to the lack of sanction under Section 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The prosecution, initiated without any sanction, was challenged after discovering that there was no actual order from the Government sanctioning the prosecution, as the Chief Secretary had mistakenly conveyed otherwise. The Supreme Court examined whether sanction was necessary for prosecuting the appellant under Section 409 IPC. The Court cited various precedents, including Hori Ram Singh v. Emperor and H. H. B. Gill v. The King, to elucidate that sanction is required if the act complained of is directly concerned with the official duties. The Court concluded that sanction was necessary for prosecuting the appellant under Section 409 IPC, as the acts were integrally connected with his duties as a public servant. The absence of such sanction rendered the prosecution unsustainable, leading to the quashing of the conviction. 2. Sufficiency of Evidence to Establish Offences under Sections 465 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code: The appellant was charged under Section 465 IPC for forging the thumb-impression and under Section 409 IPC for criminal misappropriation of Rs. 51. The trial Magistrate acquitted the appellant, holding that the prosecution had not established that the amount drawn did not reach the hands of Parma. The High Court, however, convicted the appellant, finding that the thumb-impression in the acquittance roll being that of the appellant was sufficient to establish his guilt. The Supreme Court did not delve into the sufficiency of evidence due to the finding on the necessity of sanction, which was dispositive of the case. 3. Justification for the High Court's Reversal of the Trial Magistrate's Acquittal: The appellant contended that the High Court's reversal of the trial Magistrate's acquittal was unjustified. The Supreme Court, however, focused on the procedural aspect of sanction under Section 197(1) and did not specifically address the High Court's rationale for reversing the acquittal. The Court emphasized that the lack of requisite sanction vitiated the entire prosecution, making it unnecessary to consider the merits of the evidence or the High Court's judgment on that basis. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the convictions and sentences passed on the appellant due to the absence of necessary sanction under Section 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court ordered the refund of any fine paid by the appellant.
|
