JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal by the Crown under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order of acquittal of the respondent, dated 8th December, 1924, passed by the learned Sessions Judge of Rae Bareli.

2. The trial Court convicted the respondent under Sections 169 and 403 of the Indian Penal Code. Under each section he was sentenced to one month's rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 50. The sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently. From the order of the trial Court the respondent preferred an appeal to the Court of the Sessions Judge of Rae Bareli with the result that the appeal was allowed and the convictions and the sentences were set aside as already stated.

3. The ground on which the decision of the Court below is based is that the Court is debarred from taking cognisance of the offence without the previous sanction of the Local Government under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and it is admitted that there is no such sanction in existence. The validity of this ground is challenged in appeal before us.

4. We are, however, of opinion that the decision of the learned Judge is right and should be maintained. The question for decision is whether the respondent is a "public servant" who is not removable from his office save by or with "the sanction of the Local Government" and whether "the offence alleged to have been committed by him" was committed "while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his duty"-S. 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

5. The respondent is a member of the Rae Bareli District Board. The charge of which he has been convicted is in effect that he was appointed by that Board to be an officer for the purpose of holding a sale by auction of one she buffalo on the 18th August, 1924, and that he himself purchased the buffalo in the name of a servant of his.

6. The sale contemplated by the charge was one held under the provisions of Section 14 of the Cattle Trespass Act, 1871. Under that section the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station or such other officer as the Magistrate of the District appoints in this behalf is authorised to sell by public auction, after the observance of certain preliminaries, the impounded cattle. The authority thus conferred on the Magistrate of the district was delegated to the District Board by a Government notification in the year 1899. The District Board could therefore appoint an officer for the purpose of carrying out the sale contemplated by Section 14 of the Cattle Trespass Act.

7. It is admitted that the respondent was appointed such an officer by the District Board of Rae Bareli. It is manifest that he was so appointed because he was a member of the District Board. Under Section 89 of the U.P. District Boards Act, 1922, every officer of the Board shall be deemed to be a public servant within the meaning of the Indian Penal Code. The reasoning which we adopt therefore is that the respondent was an "officer" because he was a member of the Board and he was a public servant because he was an officer. It follows that he was a public servant because he was a member of the Board. It is admitted and it is provided by Section 31 of the U.P. District Boards Act, 1922, that a member can be removed from a Board by the Local Government alone. The first condition of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is therefore satisfied in the present case. As to the second condition the authority under which the respondent held and concluded the sale was clearly derived by him under the provisions of Section 14 of the Cattle Trespass Act already referred to. The closing of the sale was therefore an act done by the respondent in the discharge of his official duty and the fact that he closed it in the name of his servant for his own benefit is the essence of the offence with which he was charged. On these grounds we dismiss the appeal.