Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether sanction under Section 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was necessary before prosecuting a public servant for criminal misappropriation under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code on the facts of the case.
Analysis: Sanction is not required for every offence alleged against a public servant. It becomes necessary where the act complained of is directly concerned with official duties so that, if questioned, the public servant can reasonably claim that it was done by virtue of office. In a charge of misappropriation, the requirement depends on the facts and on whether the acts alleged are so integrally connected with the duties of the office as to be inseparable from them. On the facts found, the receipt of the money, the duty to disburse it to the workman, and the making of the acquittance entry and thumb-impression were all acts falling within the scope of the appellant's official functions.
Conclusion: Sanction under Section 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was required and its absence rendered the prosecution for Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code incompetent; the conviction was liable to be quashed.
Ratio Decidendi: For Section 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, sanction is required when the offence alleged is so directly connected with the public servant's official duty that the act can reasonably be claimed to have been done by virtue of office.