Sanction from the Government is not required for the offence under Section 409, I.P.C., when the public servant is alleged to have committed the offence of fabrication of record or misappropriation of public funds, as it is not integrally connected to the discharge of official duties.

Heard both the parties.

2. The above revision is directed against the order of conviction and sentence dated 9-2-95 in C.A. No. 87 of 1994 on the file of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagai Quaid-e-Milleth District Nagapattinam, confirming the order and sentence of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvarur dated 5-3-94 in C.C. No. 2451 of 1990 for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 467 & amp; 477-A, I.P.C.

3. The petitioner was facing a trial in C.C. No. 2451 of 1990 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvarur for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 467 & amp; 477A, I.P.C. with regard to alleged offences, namely, forgery, breach of trust, falsification of accounts and misappropriation of funds of the account holders PW 5 and PW 7, when the petitioner was working as Branch Post Master at Tiruvarur Village during the period 25-11-85 and 6-11-86.

4. Twelve witnesses were examined as PW 1 to PW 12 and fifty five documents were marked as Ex. P1 to Ex. P55 on behalf of the prosecution.

5. It is sufficent to mention that PW 2 was a co-employee of PW 3; PW 6 was the brother-in-law of the account holder and PW 7 is the wife of the account holder and PW 6 was also another account holder.

6. According to the prosecution, the petitioner, who was functioning as a Branch Post Master, forged the signature of the account holders and withdrew the amounts by falsifying the official records and misappropriated the funds.

7. The learned Judicial Magistrate, by order dated 5-8-94 in C.C. No. 2431 of 1990, in the light of the evidence of PW 1 to PW 2 and Ex. P1 to Ex. P55 acquitted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 471 I.P.C., but however convicted the petitioner under Sections 409, 467 and 477-A, I.P.C. and sentenced him with two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1, 000/-, in default of which, three months rigorous imprisonment in addition, for each of the said offences, all to run concurrently; and the same, on appeal in C.A. No. 87 of 1994, by order dated 9-2-95, was confirmed by the learned District Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the order of conviction and sentence of the Courts below on the following grounds.

.(i) The Courts below failed to take into consideration the delay in lodging the complaint and

.(ii) There was no proper sanction from the Government before prosecuting the petitioner as required under Section 197, Cr.P.C.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that the petitioner was about 50 years old and since he has lost his employment due to the above conviction and sentence, he, being the only bread-winner in the family, is engaged in some part-time private employment, and therefore, deserves sympathetic consideration in terms of the sentence assuming the order of conviction is confirmed.

10. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate contends that in the matter of continuous cause of action as the case in hand, the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay in lodging the complaint is not applicable in law and in any event, even if there is any delay, the same is negligible and the delay was properly explained and appreciated by the Courts below.

11. That apart, the learned Government Advocate relying on the decision of Shambhoonath Misra v. State of U.P., reported in 1997 SCC(Cri) 576 : 1997 CrLJ 2491) contends that no sanction is required for the offence punishable under Section 409 I.P.C. as held by the Apex Court.

12. I have given a careful consideration to the submissions of both sides.

13. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, with regard to any delay in making the complaint for the offence said to have been committed by the petitioner is done during the service of the petitioner and the delay in making the complaint is also properly explained and appreciated by the Courts below for collecting the necessary documentary evidences, fo