Sanction under section 197 Cr. P.C. is not necessary for the prosecution of a railway officer under Section 477A IPC if the authority competent to remove the petitioner from service is not the Central Government.

1. - After hearing Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner & Mr. Soral learned counsel for the Central Government, I find that no sanction under section 197 Cr. P.C. was necessary to enable the trial court to take cognizance of the offence under section 477A IPC, The point raised on behalf of the petitioner stands concluded against him on the authority of the case reported in K N. Shukla v. Navnit Lal Manilal Bhatt and another, A.P.R. 1967 S.C. 1331 ., Section 197 Cr. PC. came up construction before their Lordships of the Supreme Court in context of prosecution of a railway officer officiating in class I, under sections 166, 167, and 182 I.P.C. Section 197 Cr. P.C. was pleaded before their Lordships in bar of the prosecution. Rejecting the argument based upon section 197 Cr. P C their Lordship made the following observations:

"We do not think there is any substance in this argument. If one the Central Government has delegated its power to another authority with regard to appointment and removal of a Public servant then for the purpose of S 197, Criminal Procedure Code the public Servant concerned will not be treated to be a public servant "not removable from his office except by or with the sanction of the Central Government within the meaning of that section".

Relying on the authority, I hold that the prosecution of the petitioner under Section 477A IPC. was valid even though it had been instituted without obtaining the sanction of the appointing authority I may mention here that it is not disputed in the present case that the authority competent to remove the petitioner from service is not the Central Government. He is railway servant and as such removable from service either by the General Manager or some authority subordinate to him.

2. For all these reasons and the reasons given in this Court's order dated, December 10, 1981, this petition of revision fails & is therefore dismissed in limine.Revision dismissed.

*******