Sanction for prosecution--Petitioner while embezzling the amount cannot be said to be acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duties--Section 197 Cr.P.C. not attracted.

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.

1. By the common judgment, five Criminal Revision Petitions bearing Nos. 268, 269, 270, 271 and 272 of 1995 will be decided.

2. These five revision petitions has been preferred by Gian Chand son of Des Raj. All these five revisions have resulted from the prosecution of petitioner Gian Chand in case FIR No. 69 dated 9.3.1985, registered at Police Station Dhanaula under Sections 409, 468, 471 IPC. The FIR was lodged on the basis of a letter No. 309 desptached by Madan Mohan, Senior Medical Officer, Primary Health Center, Dhanaula, on 24.1.1985. Due to different duration of period of embezzlement from above FIR, five separate challans were submitted.

3. Before I advert to the facts of the case, as the periods of embezzlement were segregated. One revision petition pertains to the charge that on 12.11.1983, 3.12.1983 and 28.2.1984, being public servant, petitioner was entrusted with Rs. 4,635.57 ps., Rs. 7,213.65 ps. and Rs. 5,902.35 ps. and had embezzled the same (challan No. 1).

4. In the second revision, charge is that on 21.11.1984 and 10.12.1984, the petitioner in his capacity as public servant was entrusted with a sum of Rs. 2,392/- and Rs. 3,128/- and had embezzled the same (challan No. 2).

5. In the third revision, charge was that petitioner on 13.6.1984, 23.6.1984 and 10.8.1984 as a public servant was entrusted with Rs. 12,058.80 ps., Rs. 2,110.80 ps. and Rs. 1,162/- and had embezzled the same (challan No. 3).

6. In the fourth revision, charge was that petitioner being a public servant on 10.9.1984, 20.10.1984 and 6.11.1984 was entrusted Rs. 6,565.20 ps., Rs. 10,387.25 ps. and Rs. 4,245.60 ps. and had embezzled the same (challan No. 4).

7. In the fifth revision, charge was that the petitioner as public servant was entrusted on 9.11.1984, 13.11.1984 and 20.11.1985, Rs. 2,151.50 ps, Rs. 3,950.25 ps., and Rs. 1,035/- and had embezzled the same (challan No. 5) .

8. The petitioner during the period of above said embezzlement had remained posted as Clerk-cum-Cashier at Primary Health Center, Dhanaula. Official witnesses have stated that cash and vouchers were entrusted to the petitioner. It was also stated by the witnesses that the petitioner was collecting fee etc. and the amounts, were received from the Dispensaries, Sub Centers and the Rural Hospitals, which were within the jurisdiction of Primary Health Center, Dhanaula. The amounts so received was to be deposited by the petitioner in the bank account maintained at the State Bank of Patiala. It is stated that from Assistant Treasury Officer, personal verification of various challans was got conducted. Challans bore square seal of bank but no amount was deposited by these challans in the bank and there was a forged seal of the bank.

9. The witnesses examined in the one FIR, which was segregated into five separate trials are almost same. In all the five cases, similar pleas have been raised on behalf of the prosecution and defence.

10. Two Courts below after appreciating the evidence, have upheld the conviction of the petitioner. The petitioner was sentenced under Section 409 IPC to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. He was also sentenced under Section 468 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year & six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

11. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has made three submissions before me :-

a) That no sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was obtained as the petitioner was a public servant and the same is fatal to the prosecution case;

b) The second submission made before me was that in the present case, no reliance can be placed on the report of Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab as it was encumbent upon the trial Court to examine the Handwriting Expert and the report of Handwrit