The requirement of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. for prosecuting a public servant can be raised at any stage of proceedings, including at the appellate stage.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla, J.-Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ratnesh Nandan Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. By means of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed to set aside the impugned order dated 19.8.2022 passed in Criminal Revision No. 71 of 2023 Dr. Sukarmpal Singh Tomar v. State of U.P. and another, passed by learned Additional District and Session Judge/Court No. 4, Baghpat arising out of order dated 22.2.2023 passed by learned ACJM, Baghpat in Criminal Case No. 2310 of 2022 in pursuance of First Information Report dated 3.5.2012 registered as Case Crime No. 112 of 2012 under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station-Chhaprauli, District-Baghpat.

3. The matter in brief is that respondent No. 2 lodged an FIR dated 3.5.2012 registered as Case Crime No. 112 of 2012, under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station-Chhaprauli, District-Baghpat alleging that the petitioner embezzled the school fund by withdrawing Rs. 80,000/- from the account of School and deposited the said amount in his personal bank account without any approval from the Managing Director.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that though the charge-sheet was submitted qua the petitioner on 24.9.2012 but no sanction was sought under Section 197 Cr.P.C. It has also been submitted that as the petitioner was appointed as a Principal in Adarsh Vaidik Vidyalay Inter College, Nangala Sinauli, therefore, he was a public servant and, therefore, it was mandatory to seek sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. before prosecuting the petitioner.

5. The petitioner moved an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat seeking sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. but the same was rejected vide order dated 22.2.2023. Aggrieved by the order dated 22.2.2023, the petitioner filed a Criminal Revision No. 71 of 2023 Dr. Sukarmpal Singh Tomar v. State of U.P. and another, which was also rejected vide order dated 19.8.2023 on the ground that the petitioner should have raised the objection at the stage of framing of the charges.

6. From the perusal of the records, it transpires that the matter pertains to the year 2012 and the cognizance was taken on 11.9.2012 and the charges were framed on 24.9.2015 and P.W.-1 has been examined after eight years of framing of the charges, the petitioner has moved the application to delay the trial proceedings, therefore, it has no force.

7. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Devinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab Through CBI, (2016) 12 SCC 87, has held that ''Question of sanction may arise at any stage of proceedings or may have to be determined from stage to stage - Question of sanction can be taken up, while framing charge, and can be decided prima facie on basis of accusation - Ordinarily, question of sanction should be dealt with at stage of taking cognizance -But if cognizance is taken erroneously, without valid sanction (when it was required but not taken), such plea can be taken up at a later stage even at appellate stage - Sometimes certain questions about requirement of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. cannot be decided without evidence - Such questions like good faith or bad faith of public servant can be decided on conclusion of trial.''

8. Hence, in the light of the decision of the Apex Court as quoted above, the petitioner is at liberty to move a fresh application at the appropriate stage seeking sanction which shall be considered and decided in accordance with law, if there is no other legal impediment.

9. With the aforesaid direction, the petition is disposed of.