| It is not every offence committed by a public servant that requires sanction for prosecution under section 197 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure nor even every act done by him while he is actually engaged in the performance of his official duties; but if the act complained of is directly concerned with his official duties so that, if questioned, it could be claimed to have been done by virtue of the office, then sanction would be necessary; and that would be so, irrespective of whether it was, in fact, a proper discharge of his duties, because that would really be a matter of defence on the merits, which would have to be investigated at the trial, and could not arise at the stage of the grant of sanction, which must precede the institution of the prosecution. |
| Whether sanction is necessary to prosecute a public servant on a charge of criminal misappropriation, will depend on whether the acts complained of hinge on his duties as a public servant. |
| If they do, then sanction is requisite. |
| But if they are unconnected with such duties, then no sanction is necessary. |
| Hori Ram Singh vs Emperor ([1939] F.C.R. 159), H. H. B. Gill vs The King ([1948] L.R. 75 I.A. 41), Albert West Meads vs The King ([1948] L.A. 75 I.A. 185), Phanindra Chandra vs The King ([1949] L.R. 76 I.A. 10), B. W. Mothavzs vs State of West Bengal ([1955] 1 S.C.R. 216) and Shreekantiah Ramayya Munipalli vs The State of Bombay ([1955] 1 S.C.R. 1177), referred to. |
|
|
