Sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code is required only if the act complained of is integrally connected with the public servant's official duties.

JUDGMENT

V.S. Aggarwal, J. - By this common judgment Criminal Misc. 7629-M of 1992 and Criminal Revision No. 709 of 1995 can conveniently be disposed of together.

2. The sole question agitated in the above mentioned Criminal Miscellaneous and Criminal Revision is as to whether sanction under Section 197 Criminal Procedure Code to prosecute the petitioner is necessary or not.

3. As against the petitioner, it is alleged that in the year 1981 the petitioner was posted in the office of Block Development Officer at Rurka Kalan as an Accountant. He was entrusted with Rs. 17,482/-. He committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the said property. During the same period be forged certain documents i.e. challans, vouchers and cash books intending that these shall be used for purposes of cheating. It is also asserted that he wilfully and with intention to defraud destroyed and forged some vouchers and account books in the office of Block Development Officer, Rurka Kalan.

4. It has been urged that in the facts of the case it was necessary that before the Court could take the cognizance the sanction to prosecute, as contemplated under sub-section (1) of Section 197 Criminal Procedure Code, should have been obtained. Sub-section (1) of Section 197 Code of Criminal Procedure reads :-

"197(1). When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction -

(a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government;

(b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State, or of the State Government."

The above said provision has been enacted to provide a safeguard to public/government servants. It puts an embargo that no court can take cognizance of the offences purported to have been committed by such an officer in discharge of his official duties or purported to act in discharge of his official duties, except with the sanction of the government, competent to remove him from the said office. It provides a safeguard and protects the government servant from vexatious proceedings against him. A superior authority considers and has to give the sanction before the Court can take cognizance. As observed by this Court in the case State of Haryana v. Jagdish Chander, Criminal Revision No. 472 of 1992, decided on 10.10.1996, the intention is not to put a veil around the public servants but it is to enable them to perform duties without fear, protected from malafide and false implication in cases.

5. This question as to whether the sanction before prosecuting the government servant concerned is necessary or not has been agitating the minds of the Courts time and again. The law on the point is clear. No question of sanction arises under Section 197 Criminal Procedure Code unless the act complained of is an offence. The point that has to be determined in each case is whether the offence was committed in discharge of official duties ? There must be a reasonable nexus between the act and the official duty. If the acts complained of are integrally connected with the duty and cannot be separated, the sanction referred to above would be necessary.

6. In the case of H.H.B. Gill and another v. The King, AIR 1948 Privy Council 128 the court explained as to when a public servant can be said to act or purported to act in discharge of his official duties. In paragraph 30 it was observed :-

"A public servant can only be said to act or to purport to act in the discharge of his official duty, if his act is such