The act of misappropriation by a public servant may require sanction under Section 197 (1), Cr. P. C. if it is integrally connected with the discharge of official duty.

( 1 ) IN this petition the petitioner ques tions the legality and propriety of the order dated 23- 2-1994 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Davanagere in PCR No. 28/92 (CC No. 1043 of 1994) registering a case under Section 409 I. P. C. against him and issuing summons to him for the said offence.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts are that during the years 1987 to 1992 the petitioner was working as the Managing Director in the respondent-society. During the year 1988 the Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga was appointed as the Special Officer to exercise the powers and functions of the committee of the Man agement of the society as it had been superseded under Section 30-A of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. The petitioner who was the Managing Director was transferred as Deputy Secretary of Zilla Parishad at Raichur in the year 1991 and in his place one Sri. Umapathi was posted. However that order of transfer was cancel led on 29-6-1991 by the Government. Apprehending some move by Sri. Umapathi in regard to that cancellation of the trans fer, the petitioner engaged a lawyer for filing a caveat petition before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal and accordingly the lawyer so engaged after filing a caveat petition on behalf of the petitioner describing him as the Managing Director sent him a bill for Rs. 1,500. 00 addressing the same to the Man aging Director of the Sugar Factory. That bill is produced at Ex. P. 4 dated 10-7-1991. The bill was processed by the Office and on the reverse of it the revision petitioner directed payment by endorsing "please pay. " In pursuance of this order a cheque for Rs. 1,500. 00 was issued to the lawyer from out of the funds of the respondent-sugar factory society and the same was encashed by the lawyer on 22-7-1991. In February 1992 elections were held to the managing body of the respondent sugar factory society and the new committee elected took over the manage ment and authorised the Managing Director incharge to prosecute the revision petitioner. He refused to do so in the absence of government sanction to pros ecute under Section 197 Cr. P. C. Thereafter the managing body authorised the Chairman to institute criminal proceedings. A notice was issued to the revision petitioner on 6-5-1992 demanding the amount alleging that the amount of Rs. 1,500. 00 had been spent for his own purpose by the revision petitioner and he could not have directed payment of funds payable by him personally to his lawyer from out of the funds of the society. The revision peti tioner returned the amount by sending a draft on 21 -5-1992. The respondent-society has encashed it.

( 3 ) ALLEGING temporary misappropriation of Rs. 1,500. 00 for a period of ten months from 22-7-1991 to 21-5-1992 with due authorisation from the managing committee, the Chairman of the respondent society filed a private complaint before the learned J. M. F. C. Davanagere. On 29-5-1992 the complaint was referred to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Davanagere for Investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. in PCR No. 28 of 1992. After investigation the police submitted 'b' report on 15-5-1993. On 16-10-1993 a protest memo was filed by the com plainant and sugar factory by its Chairman. The learned magistrate examined the complainant and two witnesses. Complainant produced certain docu ments and after hearing the complainant, the learned Magistrate by his detailed order dated 23-2-1994 directed registration of the case against the revision petitioner for an offence under Section 409, I. P. C. and directed summons to him. It is this order that is under challenge in the revision petition presented before this Court. In the detailed order after record ing a finding with regard to the material placed for registering the offence under Section 409, I. P. C. , the learned J. M. F. C. referring to requirement of sanc tion to prosecute under Section 197, Cr. P. C. opined that it was no part of the duty of the revision peti