The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. to prosecute a public servant and the interpretation of the protection provided to public servants in the discharge of their official duties.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent - State. Perused the records.

2. This petition is filed for quashing of the orders passed by Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. Court, Byadgi in C.C. Nos.266/2002 and 267/2002 dated 25.08.2010 against this petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 465, 466, 471 and 477 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.' for brevity) in refusing to discharge the accused for the said offences by invoking Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.' for brevity) and also for quashing of the orders passed by II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Haveri, sitting at Ranebennur in C.R.P. No. 144/2010 dated 31.08.2013.

3. The brief facts of case that emanate from records are that, Police have submitted a charge sheet against this petitioner - accused No. 1 and other accused persons alleging that while accused No. J was working as a Block Educational Officer in Byadgi during 06.09.1999 to 18.09.2000 in connivance with accused Nos.2 and 3 has got created false and fictitious salary bills, transfer benefit bills, T.A. bills and other bills of Government servants at Byadgi and a cheque book was also taken from the concerned Bank. It is also alleged that an amount of Rs.42,330/- of the Government is mis-appropriated by all the accused persons including petitioner on several dates. It is also further alleged that during 01.04.2000 to 31.03.2001 the accused persons have mis-appropriated a sum of Rs.7,82,330/- and further for the period from 31.12.1999 to 31.03.2000 a sum of Rs. 13,15,903/- and apart from that also they have misappropriated to an extent of Rs.2,70,000/-.

4. The main contention of accused No.1 was that, in fact accused Nos.2 and 3 have committed these offences by creating false and fictitious bills as alleged against them. This petitioner is only a Superior Officer of accused Nos.2 and 3 and he might have only approved or countersigned the said bills during the discharge of his duty as a public servant. Therefore, the act of accused Nos.2 and 3 compared to the act of accused No.1 is totally separable in nature, and therefore, in order to prosecute accused No.1 prior sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is absolutely necessary. Accordingly, accused No.1 has made an application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. seeking for discharge by raising the provision under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. After analysing the charge sheet papers, both the Courts have come to the conclusion that the materials placed before Courts are sufficient to draw an inference at that stage that the acts of accused Nos. 1 to 3 are inseparatable in nature. Therefore, the trial Court as well as the revisional Court have come to the conclusion that the sanction under Section 197 of Cr,P.C. is not necessary to prosecute accused No.1 also. Against said order, the present petition has been filed before this Court.

5. I have carefully pet used the orders passed by both the Courts. Though this Court cannot go in detail with the factual matrix of case, nevertheless, the legal point involved in this particular case can be discussed. On the basis of charge sheet papers trial Court has come to conclusion that there is allegation of connivance between accused Nos. 1 to 3. When the materials placed before Court shows that there was connivance between accused Nos. 1 to 3, then they cannot stand on different footing. Both the Courts have relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in - AIR 1997 SC 2102 between Shambunath Mishra vs. State of U.P. and another.

6. In the said judgment similar facts are involved as in this case and particularly relying upon the portion of said judgment, the trial Court has come to conclusion that sanction is not necessary, so far as this accused is concerned. For the purpose of understanding the principles laid down in the said case, it is worth to reiterate