Judgment

RANGANATH MISRA, J. :- In this appeal by special leave, the short question for consideration is, if sanction under Section 197, Code of Criminal Procedure (Code for short) is necessary for the prosecution of the appellant for an offence of cheating punishable, under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Appellant was Regional Officer of the Directorate of Field Publicity of the Government of India in 1972. He travelled by air from Srinagar to Delhi to and fro on one occasion and from Srinagar to Jammu to and fro on two other occasions by obtaining air tickets in lieu of exchange orders. The cost of the tickets obtained by the appellant was debitable to the account of the Directorate and under the rules the appellant was required to exclude the same from the bills for travelling allowance. On the allegation that the appellant submitted bills including the air fare and received payment for the same, a prosecution report was submitted against him for the offence of cheating under Section 420, I.P.C. in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Srinagar. The appellant took the plea that in the absence of sanction under Section 197 of the Code, the prosecution was not maintainable. The trying Magistrate rejected the contention and the High Court upheld the order in a revision at the instance of the appellant.

3. Section 197 (1) of the Code provides :

"When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction -

(a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government ............"

Undoubtedly, the section is designed to facilitate an effective and unhampered performance of official duty by public servants by making provision for scrutiny into allegations against them by superior authorities and prior sanction for prosecution as a condition precedent to the cognizance of cases against them by courts so that protection may be available from frivolous, vexatious or false prosecutions for offences alleged to have been committed by them while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their official duty. As pointed out by this Court in Srivastava v. Misra, (1970) 2 SCC 56 the umbrella of protection is available in respect of offences alleged to have been committed while acting or purporating to act in the discharge of official duty. In is the contention of the appellant that qua public officer the appellant submitted the impugned bills and has drawn the travelling allowance. According to him, the furnishing of the bills and the drawing of the allowance are integrally connected with his status of being a public servant and must, therefore, be taken to be covered by the two phrases occurring in sub-section (1) of Section 197 of the Code.

4. We are of the view that the submission advanced on behalf of the appellant is totally without any basis and has to be rejected. The state of the law as laid down by this Court in several precedents may usefully be referred to in support of this conclusion. In Amrik Singh v. State of Pepsu, ( 1955) 1 SCR 1302 the accused was a SubDivisional Officer in the Public Works Department of Pepsu. It was apart of his duties to disburse the wages to workmen employed in certain works at a place called Karhali. The procedure usually followed was that he drew the amount required from the Treasury and disbursed the amount to the employees against their signatures or thumb impressions in the monthly acquittance roll. Payment was shown to have been made to one Parma for the month of April 1951. The Sub-Divisional Officer was prosecuted on the allegation that P