R.D. KOTHARI, J.

1. The petitioner herein prays to quash FIR bearing C.R. No. I. 369/91 registered with Anand Rural Police Station, which was culminated in Criminal Case No. 6023/1993, which is pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C. Anand.

2. The petitioner, at the relevant time, was working as Range Forest Officer at Anand. Assistant Conservator of Forests, Sub-Division, Anand has lodged complaint before Anand Rural Police Station against the present petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging that the petitioner while working as Range Forest Officer at Anand had abused his position and misappropriated an amount of Rs. 3540/. In a fairly detail complaint, in substance, the allegation leveled is that cowdung (manure) used for three different Nurseries, viz. Boriyavi, Adas and Mogar, was shown excess than actually used.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Chetan Pandya for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. Ms. Hansa Punani for the State.

4. Mr. Pandya has made two fold submission. Firstly, he submitted that the complaint of the year 1991, if allowed to be proceeded for trial in the year 2013, then it would violate the accused’s right of fair and speedy trial. In this regard, learned advocate for the petitioner has drawn attention of the Court to the decision of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vakil Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, (2009)3 SCC 355, and Mahendra Lal Das vs. State of Bihar and others, (2002)1 SCC 149. The second submission made by Mr. Pandya is that there is no sanction for prosecution as required under Section 197

5. In Vakil Prasad Singh’s case (supra), the accused was facing charge of corruption. The Supreme Court, while quashing the criminal case filed against the accused, has observed that the currency notes were recovered from the accused in the year 1981, and though the accused was caught red handed, charge sheet was filed in 2007.

5.1 In Mahendra Lal Das’s case (supra) also the accused was facing charge of corruption. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while quashing the prosecution against the accused, has observed that the sanction for prosecution was not granted by the Government despite expiry of over 12 years after registration of F.I.R.

6. In the present case, facts are not in dispute. The FIR was lodged on 26.9.1991 in connection with the incident alleged to have taken place in 1988. Thus, the FIR itself is lodged almost after three years of the alleged incident and after lodging of the FIR, more than 22 years have lapsed. The decisions in the above referred cases, i.e. Vakil Prasad Singh (Supra) and Mahendra Lal Das (Supra) do support the case of the petitioner.

7. On the point of sanction as required under Section 197 Cr.P.C., Mr. Pandya has drawn attention of the Court to the case of Cr. P.C, and therefore, in the circumstances of the case trial should not be allowed to be proceeded in absence of sanction. Shreekantiah Ramayya Munipalli v. State of Bombay, (1955)1 SCR 1177. In that case, there were three accused. All were Government servants working in Military Engineering Store. It was the case of the prosecution that some of the goods belonging to the Government was sold by the accused and an amount of Rs. 4000/yielded therefrom, was pocketed by them instead of depositing the same with the Government. In that case, sanction was granted in respect of accused No.1, however, in respect of other accused sanction was not granted. It was held that the trial is vitiated on account of want of sanction as required under section 197 Cr.P.C. In that case, Bose, J. for the Court has held in paras 18, 19 & 20 thus:

“18. Now it is obvious that if Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is construed too narrowly it can never be applied, for of course it is no part of an official’s duty of to commit an offence and never can be. But it s not the duty we have to examine so much as the act, because an official act can be performed in the discharge of official duty as wel