Sanction under criminal procedure law not required for alleged record interpolation, cheating and fraudulent appointments; charges sustained on prima facie material.

Sanction under Section 197 CrPC was held unnecessary where the alleged acts involved interpolation of records, cheating, wrongful payments and fraudulent appointments, because such conduct was not part of discharge of official duty. On the charge-framing issue, the Court found the material in the two charge-sheets sufficient to disclose a prima facie case, including allegations of criminal conspiracy and wrongful payment under the contract matter. The charges under the Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act were therefore sustained, and no case for discharge was made out. The revision failed on both grounds and the trial court's order was affirmed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was required to prosecute the revisionist for the alleged offences under the Penal Code. (ii) Whether the charges framed on the material collected in the two charge-sheets disclosed a prima facie case warranting trial.

Issue (i): Whether sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was required to prosecute the revisionist for the alleged offences under the Penal Code.

Analysis: The FIR had been directed to be lodged pursuant to judicial in a PIL, and the alleged acts consisted of interpolation of records, cheating, and wrongful payments or appointments. Such acts were held not to be part of discharge of official duty. The protection under Section 197 was treated as inapplicable in the facts of the case, and the decisions relied upon by the revisionist were found distinguishable.

Conclusion: Sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was not required, against the revisionist.

Issue (ii): Whether the charges framed on the material collected in the two charge-sheets disclosed a prima facie case warranting trial.

Analysis: On the material referred to in the charge-sheets, the allegations disclosed wrongful payment under the contract matter and fraudulent appointment by interpolation in official records. The Court found sufficient material to sustain the view that the revisionist had entered into criminal conspiracy and that the charges had been framed on evidence available on record. The plea for discharge was not pressed as a substantive ground before the Court.

Conclusion: The charges under the Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act were rightly framed and no case for discharge was made out.

Final Conclusion: The revisions failed on both the sanction issue and the challenge to framing of charge, and the order of the trial court was affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where alleged acts consist of cheating, fabrication or interpolation of records, or other dishonest conduct not done in discharge of official duty, sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is not required, and charges may be sustained if the record discloses a prima facie case.

---