Sanction, Entrustment and Probation Bar: SC note affirms conviction for misappropriation and rejects probation in corruption offences.
Sanction was held unnecessary for an offence under Section 409 IPC, because misappropriation is not an act done in discharge of official duty and Section 197 CrPC does not apply; the objection based on absence of sanction was rejected. Conviction under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 409 IPC was upheld because entrustment of stock and substantial shortage were proved, and the accused failed to explain the disposal of the entrusted property. Probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 was denied because Section 18 creates an express bar for offences under Section 5(2).
Issues: (i) Whether prosecution was vitiated for want of sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (ii) Whether the conviction under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was sustainable on the evidence of entrustment and misappropriation; (iii) Whether the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 could be extended despite the statutory bar.
Issue (i): Whether prosecution was vitiated for want of sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Analysis: The requirement of sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 depends on whether the accused continues to be a public servant when cognizance is taken, whereas Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 protects only offences alleged to have been committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty. Misappropriation is not an act done in discharge of official duty, and the offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 does not attract sanction as a condition precedent. The Court held that the accused could not claim immunity on the ground of want of sanction after retirement.
Conclusion: The objection based on absence of sanction was rejected.
Issue (ii): Whether the conviction under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was sustainable on the evidence of entrustment and misappropriation.
Analysis: The prosecution evidence established entrustment of the stock to the accused and a substantial shortage of rice, palmolein and sugar. Once entrustment was proved, the burden lay on the accused to explain the manner in which the entrusted property was dealt with. The undertaking to pay the amount was not treated as the sole basis of guilt, but as part of the surrounding evidence. The concurrent findings of the courts below on entrustment and misappropriation were found to be supported by the record and free from perversity.
Conclusion: The conviction was upheld on merits.
Issue (iii): Whether the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 could be extended despite the statutory bar.
Analysis: Section 18 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 excludes its application to offences covered by Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. In view of that express bar, the plea for probation could not be accepted, and the suggested reliance on prior authority was held not to override the statute.
Conclusion: The request for probation was rejected.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in all material respects, and the conviction and sentence were maintained.
Ratio Decidendi: Sanction is not required for an offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, misappropriation can be proved by established entrustment and failure to account for the property, and an express statutory bar excludes probation in corruption cases covered by Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
