- (1.) A. N. Dikshita, J. By means of this application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. Sohan Lal, the applicant has prayed for quashing the proceedings of Criminal case No. 968 of 1986- State v. Sohan Lal under Sections 420/218 IPC pending in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad and also for staying the proceedings in the case.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the applicant is employed as a peon (Work and aaj) in Sharada Sahayak Khand-39, 18 Circle, Irrigation Works, Irrigation Department, U. P. since 3-2-1976. The applicant was directed from time to time for the reconciliation of the cheque with the Bank. It is alleged that on 7th June 1985, the applicant was also directed to encash cheque No. 192668 which was drawn self and was endorsed in favour of the applicant Sohan Lal, at the back of the cheque, by the Executive Engineer concerned. It is alleged that the cheque was drawn for Rs. 1,124. 95. On the presentation of the cheque at the counter of the State Bank of India, Main branch, on 7-6-1985 the counter cleark Sunil Kumar of the State Bank of India, Allahabad suspected overwriting on the cheque showing that the cheque is for Rs. 11124. 95. The applicant Sohan Lal was directed by the counter-clerk to sign again on the back of the cheque in token of its presenta tion for encashment. Finding overwriting on the cheque, a first information report was lodged. After necessary investigation a charge-sheet (police report) was submitted against the applicant and he was summoned by the trial court. Aggrieved, the applicant has filed this application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. for quashing.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant has strenuously submitted that the applicant is a government servant as enjoined under Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. The relevant provision is reporduced herein below: Section 21. * * * * "twelfth: Every person- (a) in the service or pay of the Government or remunerated by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty by the Government. " It has now to be extracted from the record as to whether the applicant is a government servant, or not and also whether while presenting the cheque for encashment before the State Bank of India, he was discharging his duties of a public servant as such. The applicant is admittedly an employee of Sharada Sahayak Khand-39 of 18 Circle Irrigation Works Irrigation Department, UP. It is thus clear that he is employed in the services of the State Government. LEARNED counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the applicant is a peon and had been directed by the Executive Engineer to get the cheque encashed. It is also manifest from the record and is not disputed that the Executive Engineer had sent the applicant for the encashment of the cheque. It is thus clear that the applicant was discharging his duties of a public servant at the behest and order of the Executive Engineer. Even in the past the appli cant on more than several occasions was deputed for this duty by the Execu tive Engineer concerned. There is no doubt that the duty assigned to the applicant Sohan Lal in getting the amount withdrawn after the encashment of the cheque was in the official discharge of his duties. The applicant is thus a public servant. Learned counsel for the applicant has then vehemently urged that once it is found that the applicant is a public servant, the mandates of Section 197, Cr. P. C. have not been complied with in the instant case. It has been submitted that prior sanction for initiation of proceedings against the applicant was not obtained and it was incumbent for the prosecution to have obtained the requisite sanction from the government as provided under Section 197 Cr. P. C. paras 11 and 12 of the affidavit tiled in support of the application is quoted in extenso. P-11. That the applicant is Class IV employee in the department of Sharda Sahayak Khand 30 at Allahabad. The applicant is Government servant permanent employee of Sharda Sahayak Khand 30 Allahabad. P-12. That the applicant is a public servant and no sanction has been obtained as required under Section 197, Cr. P. C. for the pro secution of the applicant. " While replying to above paragraphs (11 and 12) of the affidavit in the counter affidavit, it has been stated in para 4 as under: P-4. That in reply to the contents of paras 11 and 12 of the affidavit, it is stated that the crime and offence committed by the peti tioner was not a part of his official work and as such the ques tion of any sanction under Section 197 is not attracted in this case. Moreover the applicant is not an employse on which the provision of Section 197 Cr. P. C. shall be applicable. . . . . . . . . . . . " It is, thus, apparent that no sanction as enjoined under Section 197, Cr. P. C. has been obtained in this case. Section 197 Cr. P. C. provides as under:- 197. Prosecution of Judges and Public servants.- (1) When any person who is, or was a Judge, or Magistrate, or a public servant not removable from his office save by, or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been com mitted by him while acting, or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction- (a ). . . (b) in the case of a person who is employed, or as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Government. A bare persual of the provisions as enshrined under Section 197, Cr. P. C. fortify the submission of the applicant that the sanction for the prosecution of the applicant was not in accordance with Section 197, Cr. P. C. The grant of sanction is not an idle formality, but is a solemn and sacrosanct act which affords protection to public servants against farivolous prosecution. Compliance of such provision has to be strongly followed before any case can be launched against the concerned public servant. It was thus incumbent on the prosecu tion to have proved that a valid sanction had been granted by the sanctioning authority on being satisfied that a case has been made out constituting the offence. Grant of sanction removes the umbrella of protection to government servants against prosecution and as such the requirement as enjoined under Section 197, Cr. P. C. has to be strictly completed with before the prosecution could be launched against the applicant. The policy apparently underlying the provisions of Section 197 is that a public servant should not unnecessarily be harassed (See C. R. Bansi v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1971 SC 786 ).;