Public servants cannot be prosecuted for acts done in discharge of their official duty without the sanction of the appointing authority.

Uday Sinha, J.

1. This application in revision is directed against an order of the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dinapur, dated the 15th July, 1977 by which he took cognizance of offences under Sections 420 and 420-B of the Indian Penal Code and issued processes against the petitioners.

2. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were the Chairman-cum-Managing Director and Assistant General Manager respectively of National Insurance Company Limited with headquarters at Calcutta. Petitioner No. 3 is the Senior Divisional Manager of the same Company at Patna and petitioner No. 4 was the Branch Manager, at the relevant time at Patna. Petitioner No. 5, R.K. Prasad is the Inspector of the said Company. They were all summoned by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dinapur to answer the charge under Section 420/420B of the Indian Penal Code levelled against them by the complainant opposite Party.

3. The facts out of which the present application arises are that the opposite party was the Managing partner of Goldeu Enterprises, a Small Scale Industries firm. The firm had timber business and manufactured wooden cable drums, crates, furnitures, packing boxes etc. besides being general orders suppliers of electrical and mechanical goods. The firm had stocks of wooden logs which were hypothecated with the State Bank of India at Dinapur on the security of which it had been granted financial accommodation by the Bank. The goods hypothecated were insured with National Insurance Company Limited of which the petitioners were office bearers. This insurance used to be effected at the initiative of the State Bank of India. Up till 1975 the goods were insured for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- with the Insurance Company. In June, 1975 goods of the value of Rupees two lacs were hypothecated with the Bank for which the firm had already been extended an advance of Rs. 1,50,000/-, As the value of the goods hypothecated had increased the complainant wrote to the Bank for getting fresh insurance in respect of the goods and machineries hypothecated with the Bank. Accused No. 5, R.K. Prasad (petitioner No. 5) represented himself as Agent of the Company and offered to insure the goods on behalf of the Insurance Company against fire, riot, strike, flood, house breaking, theft etc. On or about the 24th of June, 1975 petitioner No. 5 brought the Insurance Companys cover-note- cum-bill No. A1353 (450B) dated 16-6-1975 which related to the earlier insurance of the goods. He prepared a draft for the proposal and gave it to the Manager, State Bank of India. The Manager of the Bank Mr. C. Prasad copied out that draft on a letter head of the Bank and handed it over to petitioner No. 5 on the very same day. The letter of the Bank addressed to the Insurance Company dated 24-6-1975 was annexed to the complaint as annexure "1". It shows a request by the Bank to the Insurance Company to (i) increase the limit of Insurance cover from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 1,50,000/- and (ii) the Policy to cover damage against fire, riot, srike, flood, burglary, house breaking and theft. The Insurance Company issued Cover Note dated 5-7-1976 in response to the letter of 24-6-1975. That letter was annexed as annexure "2" to the complaint. According to the complainant, annexure "2" represented a completed insurance contract whereby the Insurance Company undertook to insure the goods of the complainant against damage by flood, besides other causes. The firm of the complainant paid Rs, 2,862/- as premium for the enhanced risk cover. According to the complainant, in terms of annexure "2"to the complaint, a policy for Rs. 1,50,000/- should have been prepared by the Insurance Company immediately, but that was not done fraudulently. On 23-8-1975 Dinapur was visited by serious devastating flood causing loss to the hypothecated goods to the tune of Rs. 1,70,000/-. On 29-8-1975 Mr. C. Prasad Manager of the Bank wrote to the Insurance Company that the complainants firm had sustained heavy loss