A public servant accused of criminal breach of trust cannot claim protection of lack of sanction for prosecution as the offence is not connected with his official duty, the Supreme Court today said.
A bench of justices Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh aired this view while setting aside the acquittal of a government official accused of misappropriating 11 gunny bales worth Rs 38,841 from the godown of Punjab State Warehousing Corporation in 1989 and tampered with the records.
"No official can put forth a claim that breach of trust is connected with his official duty," the bench said while setting aside the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which had held that sanction was necessary for launching prosecution for criminal breach of trust.
The apex court observed that it was clear from past verdicts on the issue of sanction for prosecution that there has to be a "reasonable connection between the omission or commission and the discharge of official duty".
"If the acts omission or commission is totally alien to the discharge of the official duty, question of invoking section 197 (sanction for prosecution) Criminal Procedure Code does not arise," the apex court said.
It concluded that the person acquitted in the case by the High Court was "not entitled" to the "protective umbrella" of section 197 CrPC and the High Court had "erred" in setting aside his conviction on the ground of lack of sanction.
It allowed the appeal and referred the matter back to the High Court to be decided in accordance with law.
The court said it was "extremely difficult" to appreciate
reasoning of the High Court which had observed that under normal circumstances the offences under sections 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for cheating) and 471 (using as genuine a forged document) of IPC do not warrant obtaining of sanction, but when they are linked with criminal breach of trust, then sanction was required.
"The approach and the analysis are absolutely fallacious. We are afraid, though the High Court has referred to all the relevant decisions in the field, yet, it has erroneously applied the principle in an absolute fallacious manner. No official can put forth a claim that breach of trust is connected with his official duty," the bench said, adding that "High Court should have been more vigilant in understanding the ratio of the decisions of this court".
The apex court came to the conclusion that the person acquitted in the case by the High Court was "not entitled" to the "protective umbrella" of section 197 CrPC and the High Court had "erred" in setting aside his conviction on the ground of lack of sanction.
It allowed the appeal and referred the matter back to the High Court to be decided in accordance with law.
