JUDGMENT

Bennet, J. - This is a criminal appeal on behalf of one Anwar Ullah who has been sentenced to five years' Rule I. concurrently on three charges u/s 409, Penal Code, and sentenced to pay certain fines. The accused was a clerk in the District Board Office at Azamgarh, and the charges are that on 11th December 1928, he drew a cheque for Rs. 2,490 from the treasury in cash, and on 16th April 1929, he drew a cheque for Rs. 1,130 in cash, and on 20th April 1929, he drew a cheque for Rs. 644 in cash, and that he committed criminal breach of trust of all these amounts. The first argument which was addressed to me was that sanction of the Locsal Government was necessary for this prosecution u/s 197, Criminal P.C. That section lays down that sanction is necessary in the case of a public servant who is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Local Government or some higher authority and who 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. The lower Court has followed certain rulings and held that the actions in question were a breach of official duty and could not be said to be committed in the discharge of official duty. That question has not been argued before me "because the previous question has been argued whether the accused is removable only with the sanction of the Local Government. The accused was originally a clerk in the office of the Collector, and it has been assumed that a clerk in the office of a Collector is only removable with the sanction of the Local Government, but no authority has been shown for that proposition. Learned Counsel argued that the accused, who is a clerk in the District Board Office, is on transfer from the Collector's Office. Learned Counsel referred to Section 85, U. P. District Boards Act, 20 of 1922, which states that a board shall contribute to the pension and leave allowances of any servant whose services are lent or transferred by the Government to the board ; and under the same section it is provided in Sub-section (3) that in the case of such a servant the boird shall not, without the assent of Government, dispense with the services of, reduce the pay of, or punish any such servant. This section is headed "special provisions as to certain servants."

2. In Section 86 there is a provision made for the ordinary servants of the board that the board is entitled to establish and maintain a provident fund on behalf of its servants. Learned Counsel argued that the words "lent or transferred" indicated either a temporary loan of a Government servant or a permanent transfer. I do not consider that this meaning can be applied to the word "transfer" in this section. The word "transfer" is used in the Financial Handbook, Vol. 2, Part, 7, Chap. 12, for Government servants who are transferred to Foreign Service. "Foreign Service" is defined in Chap. 2, Section 9(7) as service in which a Government servant receives his substantive pay with the sanction of Government from any source other than the general revenues of India. It will be noted that for Foreign Service there must be a sanction of Government. There is no such sanction in the case of the present accused. In my opinion, Chap. 12 of the Fundamental Rules in the Financial Handbook dealing with Foreign Service refers to the case of Government servants who are transferred to Foreign Service where the transfer is not permanent. In the case of Government servants who are transferred permanently from the service of Government there is no connexion which remains between such a servant and Government. Examples of this will be found in the case of certain officers of Government who have left the service of Government in India and who are now employed in the service of the Colonial Office in Africa or elsewhere. It is of course possible that such officers might be sent on transfer under the conditions of Chap. 12, but there are cases in which