IMPORTANT POINT
When a public servant is alleged to have committed offence of fabrication of record or misappropriation of public fund, he cannot be said to have acted in discharge of his official duty and no prior sanction was 197 Dr P.C. is necessary for prosecution.

ORDER

Leave granted. We have heard learned

counsel on both sides.

2. This appeal by special leave arises from the JUDGMENT and order of the learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court, made on September 31, 1995 in Criminal Revision No: 985 of 1993

3. The appellant had laid a private com- the discharge of his official duty, no complaint against R.D. Tripathi, the second re- shall take cognizance 'Of such offence except spondent, for offences 'Order Sections 409, with the previous sanction of the appropriate 420, 465, 468, 477 A and 109 IPC, after Government/authority". The essential require examination, alleging that the second respondent and the Cashier had fabricated his signatures drawn and misappropriated an against the public servant must have been amount of Rs. 443.90 which was due and done while acting or purporting to act in the payable to him. On the basis there of, after discharge of his official duties. In such a recording his evidence and also the court situation, it postulates that the public servant switness under Section 202 Dr. P.C. 1973, act is in furtherance of his performance or his the Magistrate dismissed the complaint hold- official duties. If the act/omission is integraling that the sanction under Section 197 of to performance of public duty, the public the Cr. P.C. was not obtained. Aggrieved by servant is entitled to the protection under the order, the appellant went in revision Section 197(1) of Dr. P.C. Without previous sanction, the complaint/charge against him for the alleged offence cannot be proceeded with the trial. The sanction of the appropriate Government or competent authority would be necessary to protect a public servant from needless harassment or prosecution. The protection of sanction is an assurance to an honest and sincere officer to perform his public duty honestly and to the best of his ability. The threat of prosecution demoralizes the honest officer Hari Ram v. Emperor1 Orill's case2 and the cannot be camouflaged to commit crime case of B. Saha v. M.S. Kochhar3. The Public duty may provide him an opportunity question is: whether the view then by the to commit crime. The Court to proceed furtrial Court as upheld by the High Court for there in the trial or the enquiry, as the case the aforesaid reason is correct in law? may be, applies its mind and. records a finding that the crime and the official duty are not integrally connected.

5. The question is: when the public servant is alleged to have committed the offence of fabrication of record or misappropriation of public fund etc. can be said to have acted in discharge of his official duties? It is not the official duty of the public servant to fabricate the false record and misappropriate the public funds etc. in furtherance of or in the discharge of his official duties. The official capacity only enables him to fabricate the record or misappropriate the public fund etc. It does not mean that it is integrally connected or inseparably interlinked with the crime committed in the course of. Same transaction, as was believed by the learned Judge. Under these circumstance we are of the opinion that the view expressed by the High Court as well as by the trial Court on the question of sanction is clearly illegal and cannot be sustained.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Dhingra, has contended that the Magistrate came to the conclusion that it was not a part of the duty of the respondent to deal with either the preparation of the record or payment thereof. It was the duty of the Cashier and, there for, the learned Magistrate was right in his conclusion that the respondent had not committed any offence. We desist to go into that aspect. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the case. We have only dealt with the contention as to the need for sanction and as to where the sanction becomes necessary under Section 197(1) of Cr. P.C.

7. The appeal is accordingly allowed to the above extent. The order o