M.K. Mittal, J.

1. This application has been field under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings in criminal case No. 1082 of 2001 under Sections 409, 420. IPC, P.S. Cantt, District Allahabad, pending in the Court of 5th A.C.J.M., Allahabad along with charge sheet dated 21.12.2000 arising out of the crime No. 126 of 2000.

2. Brief facts of the case are that opposite party No. 2 Sri T.M. Khan, O.S. D, Litigation, High Court, Allahabad, filed a first information report on 28.6.2000 in which it has been alleged that accused applicant was posted as Cashier/Section Officer and Incharge of the Oath Commissioner's Coupons (hereinafter referred as Coupons) and defalcated large amount of money to the tune of Rs. 7,87, 266.00 from employees welfare fund. In this connection a complaint was made by Sri D.P.N. Tripathi the then Vice President of High Court Ministerial Officers Association, Allahabad on 9.3.1199 to the Registrar alleging that the accused had defalcated a large amount of money from the employees welfare fund. According to this report limited number of Oath Commissioners both officials as well as Advocates were appointed every year for swearing affidavits filed in the writ petitions in this Court and for that purpose prescribed fee was charged by them. In order to have check upon the Oath Commissioners and with a view to have proper maintenance of account the system of coupons was introduced. The notional price of one coupon was fixed at 0.01 paisa being printing charge and the Oath Commissioners were required to pay in cash this amount in the cash section at the time of purchasing coupons. Fee for Oath Commissioner as was to be charged for one affidavit was also fixed from time to time. The amount so deposited was to be shared amongst the Oath Commissioners both Advocates as well as employees. This scheme was introduced by order dated 22.2.1990 and at that time the applicant was already working as Cashier/Accountant w.e.f. 1.11.1988. He continued to work there till his suspension on 18.5.1999. During this period, applicant was exclusively incharge of the work of coupons. The entire daily sale money of coupons was required to be deposited by Sri Gaur regularly in the relevant account No. CA-II/96 High Court Oath Commissioner's Account which was opened with effect from 16.3.1990. But the applicant admittedly did not deposit the sale amount regularly. He deposited lump sum amount of Rs. Three Lacs during six days from 30 th November 1998 to 5th December, 1998. The work of deposit and withdrawal from this account was exclusively performed by the applicant. However he opened another account No. 57 w.e.f. 12.11.1991 himself. This account was meant for depositing the shares of the employees welfare fund. The work of deposit in this account was also exclusively performed by the applicant himself. Sri Diwakar Mishra, the then Joint Registrar (Account) gave the report that the applicant had defalcated a sum of Rs. 7,87,266.00. Sri Diwakar Mishra submitted three reports dated 14.5.1999, 10.8.1999 and 12.3.1999 which were shown to the applicant during his statement in the departmental enquiry and the accused applicant admitted the correctness of the report and even admitted his accountability for short fall and prayed for some time to deposit the money in instalments. It shows that he was exclusively incharge of the work and was prima facie responsible for embezzlement of money held in trust. In accordance with basic fundamentals of account rules, he was supposed to deposit the daily sale money of coupons in the relevant account CA-II/96 High Court Oath Commissioner's Accounts. The Registers showed that he did not deposit the sale money regularly but kept it with him as long as he desired. After investigation, charge sheet dated 21.12.2000 was submitted and learned Magistrate took cognizance. Feeling aggrieved this application has been filed.

3. Case of applicant is that he was posted as Section Offcer/Cashier in High Court, Allahabad on the gazetted post and he was a public servant at the alleged time of defalcation. According to applicant no sanction for prosecution has been taken under Section 197(1) Cr.P.C. and therefore no prosecution could be initiated against him and the entire proceedings are illegal and against the mandatory provisions of Section 197(1) Cr.P.C. He joined the post of Cashier cum Accountant in the High Court on 1.8.1988 and later on he was promoted as Section Officer on 18.11.1993 and since then he had been performing with utmost devotion and sincerity and there was no complaint against him. The entire account of sale of coupons, distribution of shares in employee welfare fund as well as High Court Bar Association Welfare Fund along with distribution of shares was maintained regularly and the accounts were regularly checked and verified by Joint Registrar accounts. Account No. C.A.-II/96 was opened in the name of High Court Oath Commissioner's Account for depositing amount of sale of coupons and the amount was deposited from time to time as per instructions of drawing and disbursing officer. Accounts were also regularly Submitted to the higher officers including the Deputy Registrar and Joint Registrar accounts. Money for the share distribution and other distribution in the welfare fund was also distributed with the approval of the higher authorities. It was given to the Oath Commissioner's both officials and non-officials through cheque and he never withdrew any penny. The money of the sale of coupons was not regularly deposited in the said account no. C.A.-II/96 as there were no instructions of the higher authorities including the Joint Registrar/Deputy Registrar (A) and the same was also not in practice. The money of sale of coupons was deposited at the instructions of Joint Registrar/Deputy Registrar Accounts, who were the chief drawing and disbursing officer and the applicant was bound to follow their instruct ons. It was customery in the cash section that day to day money of sale of coupons was not deposited in the Bank account No. C.A.-II/96. At number of times higher authorities also directed for cash payment to officials and non officials. This was also reason for accumulation of the sale proceeds of the coupons in the cash chest. The entire account was verified by Joint Registrar/Deputy Registrar (Account) day to day. The cash chest was also operated jointly by the applicant and the drawing and disbursing officer and the master key of the cash chest was with D.D.O. who was incharge of the cash section. The money kept in the cash chest was operated jointly and he was not authorised to operate the cash chest alone. On 24.11.1998, the Registrar General along with D.D.O. verified and checked the Oath Commissioner's Account along with other High Court Account and nothing was found short. In view of the heavy load of work Sri R.P. Patel of cash section was also ordered to assist him and was given the charge to maintain the Oath Commissioner's fund along with Joint Registrar Account. The applicant was retired from the cash account of Oath Commissioner's fund. In the First Information Report, as well as the fact finding enquiry report it has been wrongly alleged that he was performing his duty in maintaining the cash account in respect of Oath Commissioner's Fund, It was exclusive responsibility of Sri R. P. Patel as well as Sri Diwakar Mishra to maintain the said account. The cash chest key was taken by Sri Diwakar Mishra. The applicant being an old patient of abdominal disease fell ill in the month of December 1998 but any how he performed his duty during illness. But when he became seriously ill he proceeded on leave w.e.f. 3.1.1999 and the key of the cash chest was with Sri Diwakar Mishra who had grudge against him for several years and taking advantage of his absence played a game with him in collusion with Sri D.P.N. Tripathi who made the complaint against him on 9.3.1999. In his absence the money that was in the chest and under the full control of Joint Registrar (Account) Sri Diwakar Mishra was embezzled by him in collusion with his associates. His medical leave was rejected and he was suspended on 18.5.1999. During the period of his illness he came to know about misappropriation and he submitted his joining. He also came to know about complaint made by Sri D.P.N. Tripathi. The enquiry was conducted by the officer under the control of the Registrar General and on that basis charge sheet was submitted. Allegations made against him are false and fabricated. He was compelled under the phobia of the then Registrar General to put his signatures on the false statements prepared by the Enquiry Officer. The statements which are part of the enquiry report t are not his statements but are manufactured statements. In the circumstances prayer has been made for quashing the charge sheet and the proceedings. 4. The opposite parties have filed the counter affidavits. Opposite party No. 2 has alleged in the counter affidavit that application under Section 482 Cr.PC. is not maintainable as the applicant can raise his plea in the Trial Court at the time of framing of the charge. Complaint was received from D.P.N. Tripathi alleging that amounts of shares of the employee welfare fund had not been deposited regularly. Report was called by the Registrar in the matter and after receiving the report dated 17.5.1999, the applicant was put under suspension and fact-finding enquiry was ordered. A preliminary enquiry report dated 30.9.1999 was submitted by the enquiry officer and during enquiry it was revealed that the applicant had embezzled/defalcated a Sum of Rs. 7,87,266/- of the Employee Welfare Fund. Applicant had participated in the enquiry and had admitted his guilt regarding the embezzlement of employees welfare fund and had also requested for grant of some time to make good payment of the said amount. But he failed to do so. Thereafter the first information report was lodged against him and the charge sheet has been submitted and the Court has rightly taken the cognizance in the matter. The question of sanction cannot be agitated at this stage. Accused has committed offences punishable under Section 409, 420 IPC which cannot be treated to have been committed in the discharge of the official duty. Offences of cheating and misappropriation of public fund can by no stretch of imagination by its very nature be regarded as having been committed by any public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty rather in such cases the official status only provides the opportunity for commission of the said offences. The provisions of Section 197 Cr.P.C. are not attracted in this case. It is wrong to say that applicant was ever threatened or put under pressure by the Registrar General of this High Court with a view to take his signatures on any statement. In fact the statements were voluntarily given by the applicant during the course of the enquiry and were made by him after perusing the records. After the submission of the enquiry report applicant was dismissed from service in the year 2005. Opposite party also filed the copy of the preliminary enquiry report as annexure with counter affidavit.

5. Applicant filed the rejoinder affidavit and reiterated his stand. He has also filed the copy of the suspension order dated 18.5.1999.

6. I have heard Sri Viresh Mishra, the learned senior counsel for the applicant and Sri Sudhir Mehrotra learned Counsel appearing on behalf of High Court and learned A.G.A. and have perused the material on record.

7. Learned Counsel for the applicant has contended that in this case applicant was posted as Section Officer/Cashier at the relevant time and was discharging his official duty and therefore he was protected by this provision and the learned Magistrate could not have taken any cognizance in the matter as there is no sanction to prosecute him and the order passed by the learned Magistrate is without jurisdiction and the proceedings are abuse of the process of the court and are liable to be quashed. Against it the learned Counsel for the High Court has contended that although the accused was posted as public servant at the relevant time but the act of embezzlement was not in discharge of his official duty and in the circumstances no sanction was required and the proceedings initiated against the accused are and proceedings and the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed only to delay the proceedings and is liable to be dismissed. Learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 also contended that the objection regarding the sanction cannot be taken at the initial stage and the applicant can take the plea at the stage of framing of the charge. Against it learned Counsel for the applicant has contended that objection regarding the sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. can be taken at any stage.

8. It will be relevant to quote Section 197 Cr.P.C. The relevant portion reads as under:

Section 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 committed 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 ease 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:

9. First it has to be considered as to when the plea regarding objection to sanction can be taken. The learned Counsel for the applicant has cited the case of Abdul Wahab Ansari v. State of Bihar and Anr. 2001 SCC (cri) 18, wherein it has been held by the full bench of Hon'ble Apex Court that the plea that sanction was required to be obtained under Section 197(1) before taking cognizance of offence can be raised at any stage of the proceedings and it need not be raised only when court reaches the stage of framing of charge.

10. In a recent case of Prakash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab : AIR2007SC1274 , it has been held in para 48that 'there is distinction between the absence of sanction and the alleged invalidity on account of non application of mind. Former question can be raised at the thresh hold but the latter question has to be raised during trial

11. The word used in Section 197(1) Cr.P.C. are that no court sha11 take Cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction....' Therefore the question of sanction can be raised at the stage of taking cognizance as the cognizance itself depends on sanction. Where the sanction is required and has not been taken, no cognizance can be taken, as it is a mandatory provision. Therefore the question of absence of sanction can be raised at any stage even at the thresh hold of proceedings and the contention of earned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 is not acceptable.

12. The plain reading of Section 197(1) shows that if a person discharges his official duty or purports to discharge the same and in that act he is alleged to have committed any offence he is entitled to legal protection as provided by this section and he cannot be prosecuted unless sanction on has been given by competent authority.

13. The object and scope of Section 197 Cr.P.C. has been considered by Hon'ble Apex Court from time to time. In the case of Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar through CBI, (AHD) Patna 2007 (1) SC 183, it has been held that the object of Section 197 of Criminal Procedure Code is that there should be no unnecessary harassment of a public servant; the idea is to save the public servant from the harassment which may be caused to him if each and every aggrieved or disgruntled person is allowed to institute a criminal complaint against him. The protection is not intended to be an absolute and unqualified immunity against criminal prosecution. In this case a distinction has also been made between Section 197 Cr.P.C. and Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and it has been held that in case relatable to Section 197 Cr.P.C. sub stratum and basic features of the case have to be considered to find out whether the alleged act has any nexus to the discharge of duties. The position is not so in case of Section 19 of the Act.

14. In the case of Shreekantiah Ramayya Munipalli v. The state of Bombay 1955 Supreme Court Reports page 1177, while considering the scope of Section 197 Cr.P.C. it has been held that if Section 197 Cr.P.C. is construed too narrowly it can never be applied for it is no part of an official's duty to commit an offence and never can be. But it is not the duty of an official which has to be examined so much as his act, because an official act can be performed in the discharge of official duty as well as in dereliction of it. The section has content and its language must be given meaning. In that case, it has been held that if the act has been done in discharge of public duty sanction is necessary. Same view has been taken in the Case of Amrik Singh v. State of Pepsu : 1955CriLJ865 .

15. In the case of B. Saha and Ors. v. M.S. Kocher : 1979CriLJ1367 it has been held that 'any offence alleged to have been committed by public servant while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty implied Section 197(1) of the Code, are capable of both a narrow and a wide interpretation. If they were construed too narrowly the section will be rendered altogether sterile, for it is no part of an official duty to commit an offence, and never can be. At the same lime if they were too widely construed, they will take under their umbrella every act constituting an offence committed in the course of the same transaction in which the official duty is performed or is pruported to be performed. The right approach, it was pointed out, was to see that the meaning of this expression lies between these two extremes. While on the one hand, it is not every offence committed by a public servant while engaged in the performance of his official duty, which is entitled to the protection. Only an act constituting an offence directly or reasonably connected with his official duty will require sanction for prosecution. To put it briefly, it is the quality of the act that is important, and if it falls within the scope of the afore quoted words the protection of Section 197 will have to be extended to the concerned public servant'. Therefore the question whether the sanction is required or not will depend on the facts of each case and the quality of the act allegedly done by the public servant is important.

16. In the case of Matajog Dobey v. H.C. Bhari : [1955]28ITR941(SC) , it has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court that 'the offence alleged to have been committed must have something to do, or must be related in some manner with the discharge of official duty. No question of sanction can arise under Section 197 unless the act complained of is an offence; the only point to determine is whether it was committed in discharge of official duty There must be a reasonable connection between the act and the official duty. It does not matter even if the act exceeds what is strictly necessary for the discharge of the duty, as this question will arise only at the later stage when the trial proceeds on the merits.

17. In the case of Baijnath v. State of M.P. : 1966CriLJ179 , it has been held that where the act complained of is directly concerned with his official duty so that if questioned it could be claimed to have been one by virtue of the office, then sanction would be necessary. It has also been done by that 'it is the quality of the act that is important and if it falls within in the scope and range of his official duties the protection contemplated by Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code would be attracted.

18. Learned Counsel for the applicant has cited the case of Krishnalal Naskar and Ors. v. State 1982 Cri. L.J. 1305. In that case accused was alleged to have been entrusted with petrol in his capacity as clerk/Incharge of the department of the Refugee Relief and Rehabilitation and was alleged to have dishonestly disposed it of to strangers for personal gain and it was held that prior sanction was a condition precedent for his prosecution for criminal breach of trust.

19. Learned Counsel for applicant has cited the case of State of H.P. v. Nand Lal 1983 Cri. L. J., 1896, decided by Himachal Pradesh High Court. In that case the accused had funds for utilization and utilised the some for the purchase of detonator. He got the bills regarding the purchase of detonators. Detonators were used on the road but the cash receipts were missing. This act of the accused was held to be in discharge of his official duty as Pradhan. Regarding the second charge on him that he had made wrong calculation of the T.A. amount, he being entitled for T.A. as Pradhan, it was held that if there was wrong calculation in adding of the amounts it was also one of the function which was to be performed in discharge of his official duties. For both the charges, it was held that sanction was necessary. In that case, it was also observed that public servant who is alleged o have committed offence if committed by him while discharging his official duty and if that act had a reasonable connection with his official duty sanction was required even if he acted some what in excess of his limits. In that case it was also observed that it is not possible to lay down any hard and fast rules of universal application for the determination of this question, one safe and sure test in this regard would be to consider if the omission or neglection the part of the public servant could have made him answerable for a charge of dereliction of his official duties. A negative answer to this question may not clinch the issue but if the answer to this question is in the affirmative it may be said without the least hesitation and without any further probe that such act was committed by the public servant while acting in the discharge of his official duty and there was every connection with the act complained of and the official duty of the public servant.

20. In the case of R. Balakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala and Anr. 1997 (35) ACC 609 (Supreme Court), there was allegation of criminal conspiracy that while functioning as a Minister, without consent of government he supplied certain units ot electricity to private industry in Karnataka and the payment for that was made by public exchequer and it was held that the Minister was entitled to protection under Section 197(1) of the Code.

21. In the case of Sarwan Singh v. Suresh Chand Mathur 2005(51) ACC 805 cited by the learned Counsel for the applicant, it has been held by this Court that there was a bonafide mistake in identity of sellers on the part of Sub Registrar and this mistake or omission could not be said o be deliberate. Sub Registrar was present at the time of execution of sale deed There was no allegation that he had taken any bribe from the vendee in getting the sale deed executed nor the conduct alleged was in collusion with other co accused. In that case it was held that sanction was necessary.

22. In the case of Abdul Wahab Ansari (supra), appellant a public servant was appointed as Duty Magistrate and was asked by S.D.M. to remove an encroachment and in that process he ordered to open fire on the mob at the site when according to him situation became out of control and as a result one person died and two other received injuries, it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the order of opening fire was given in exercise of his official duty and therefore sanction was required.

23. In the case of State of Orisss through Kumar Raghvendra Singh and Ors. v. Ganesh Chandra Jew 2004 SCC (cri) 2104, it was held that the protection is available only when the alleged act done by the public servant is reasonably connected with the discharge of his official duty and is not merely a cloak for doing the objectionable act. In that case act of earch, seizure and arrest was done in pursuance of their official duty and it was held that they could not be proceeded against without necessary sanction as contemplated under Section 197 Cr.P.C.

24. In the case of Rakesh Kumar Mishra v. State of Bihar and Ors. (2006) 1 SCC (cri) 432, cited by learned Counsel for the applicant it has been held that protection is available only when the alleged act done by the public servant is reasonably connected with the discharge of his official duty and is not merely a cloak for dong the objectionable act. In that case cognizance was taken against the accused under Section 342, 389 469 471, 120B IPC. The accused was a police officer. A report regarding commission of dacoity was received at Police Sation and he was supervising the case. Some information was received about involvement of certain persons and one of them was Ratnesh Kumar Dubey @ Chhotu, son of respondent No. 2. On the basis of the information appellant gave spot instructions to arrest the suspects and to conduct search. Search was to be conducted in the house of respondent No. 2. Three Sub Inspectors were deputed for the purpose. However no person could be arrested and no material of any substance was seized. Respondent contended that search was motivated for the purpose of humiliating and harassing him and his son Chhotu. It was held in that case by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the acts done were in discharge of his official duty. Therefore Section 197 Cr.P.C was applicable. In that case it was also held that a public servant is not entitled to indulge in criminal activities and to that extent section has to be construed narrowly and in a restricted manner. But once it is established that an act or omission was done by public servant while discharging his duty then the scope of its being official should be construed so as to advance the objective of the section in favour of the public servant.

25. Learned Counsel for the applicant has also cited the ease of N.K. Ogle v. Sanwaldas 1999 Cri. L. J. 2105. In that case, Tehsildar had served a demand letter on respondents and when he failed to make the payment warrant of attachment was passed. Tehsildar seized and auctioned scooter of respondent when he was available with scooter in Tehsil Office, It was held by the Court that the act of Tehsildar was bonafide and initiation of prosecution by respondent against Tehsildar for the offence under Section 379 IPC was not maintainable in absence of sanction for his prosecution.

26. Learned Counsel for the applicant has also cited the case of State of Bihar v. Kamla Prasad Singh and Ors. 1998 SCC (cri) 1374. In that case allegations in the complaint were made that the accused police officials raided the house of the complainant without warrant, assaulted and abused his' wife and others and took away certain articles belonging to him. Material on record showed that material facts were suppressed by the complainant and some of the allegations were false. In the circumstances it was held that the sanction was necessary.

27. In the case of Harihar Prasad v. State of Bihar 1972, Cr L.J., 707 it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that it was not the duty of a public servant (Minister in the case) to enter into a criminal conspiracy and hence want of sanction under Section 197 of the code was no bar to the prosecution. The question whether the acts complained of had a direct nexus or relation with the discharge of official duties by the concerned public servant would depend on the facts of each case. There can be no general proposition that whenever a charge of criminal conspiracy is levelled against a public servant in or out of office, bar of Section 197(1) of the Code would have no application. Such a view would render Section 197(1) of the Code specious. Therefore the question would have to be examined in the facts of each case. In this case it was held that no sanction was required and the bar of Section 197(1) was not attracted.

28. In the case of State of H.P. v. M.P.Gupta 2004, UP Criminal Rulings Page 196, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the accused facing prosecution under Sections 420, 120B IPC is not entitled for any protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. as it is no part of duty to commit forgery in discharge of official duty.

29. In the case of S.K. Zutshi v. Bimal Debnath : AIR2004SC4174 , it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the sanction to prosecute is necessary when act or omission for which public servant was charged had reasonable connection with discharge of his official duty. In that case complaint was against personnel of Border Security Force alleging that illegal gratification of Rs. 10,000/- was demanded from complainant and on his refusal to pay the amount his shop was ransacked and goods taken way It was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the offence committed was not in discharge of official duty and the sanction to prosecute was not necessary.

30. In the Case of Bismilla Idrisi v. State of UP and Ors. 2001(1) JIC 588 (All), complainant was awarded contract for the construction of bridge but the construction could not be completed due to non supply of cement. Contract was cancelled and contract was allotted to some one else. Material used in connivance with the applicant belonged to the complinant. It was held that offence of theft or misappropriation are individual in nature and provision of Section 197 are not attracted.

31. In a recent case of Centre for Public Interest Litigation and Anr. v. U.O.I. And Anr. 2005 (53) ACC 760, a full bench of the Hon'ble Apex court while considering the scope of Section 197 has held in para 9 and 10 of the judgment as under:

The protection given under Section 197 is to protect responsible public servants against the institution of possibly vexatious criminal proceedings for offences alleged to have been committed by them while they are acting or purporting to act as public servants. The policy of the legislature is to afford adequate protection to public servants to ensure that they are not prosecuted for anything done by them in the discharge of their official duties without reasonable cause, and if sanction is granted, to confer on the Government, if they choose to exercise it, complete control of the prosecution. This protection has certain limits and is available only when the alleged act done by the public servant is reasonably connected with the discharge of his official duty and is not merely a cloak for doing the objectionable act. If in doing his officia1 duty, he acted in excess of his duty, but there is a reasonable connection between the act and the performance of the official duty, the excess will not be a sufficient ground to deprive the public servant from the protection. The question is not as to the nature of the offence such as whether the alleged offence contained an element necessarily dependent upon the offender being a public servant, but whether it was committed by a public servant acting or purporting to act as such in the discharge of his official capacity. Before Section 197 can be invoked it must be shown that the official concerned was accused of an offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties. It is not the duty which requires examination so much as the act, because the official act can be performed both in the discharge of the official duty as well as in dereliction of it. The act must fall within the scope and range of the official duties of the public servant concerned. It is the quality of the act which is important and the protection of this section is available if the act falls within the scope and range of the official duties of the public servant concerned.

Use of the expression, official duty implies that the act or omission must have been by the public servant in the course of his service and that it should have been in discharge of his duty. The section does not extend its protective cover to every act or omission done by a public servant in service but restricts its scope of operation to only those acts or omissions which are clone by a public servant in discharge of official duty.

32. In a recent case of Prakash Singh Badal (supra) in para-50 of the judgment it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that 'the offence of cheating under Section 420 or for that matter offences relatable to Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC can by no stretch of imagination by their very nature be regarded as having been committed by any public servant while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duty. In such cases, official status only provides an opportunity for commission of the offence'. In my opinion same analogy is applicable to the offence under Section 409 IPC. In other words the offence under Section 409 IPC cannot be regarded to have been done by any public servent in exercise or purported exercise of official duty. It may be mentioned that the judgments as cited by the learned Counsel for the applicant are different on facts and do not help the applicant.

33. To sum up if the public servant commits offence in discharge of official duty he is entitled to protection under Section 197(1) Cr.P.C. Public Servant is supposed to discharge his duty according to rules and for the benefit of public at large. The discharge of official duty pre supposes that the act done by public servant would be for the benefit of and in the interest of public and will not be for his own interest. If the act is done or omitted or done to promote his own interest, it will no longer remain official duty. If in discharge of his duty he intermingles his personal interest position becomes different.

34. If a public servant embezzels any amount while working in that capacity that act cannot be said to be in discharge of official duty for the simple reason that the public servant has no official duty to embezzle the public money. He only gets the opportunity to do so in his capacity as public servant. The act can be performed or duty can be discharged in a bonafide or malafide manner. Careless, mistaken or negligent act can also be bonafide or malafide. Similarly the omission to do act or to discharge the duly may be bonafide or malafide. It all will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Bonafide intention can be inferred from the act or mistake or negligence or omission while discharging the public duty. Public servant may be entitled to legal protection under Section 197(1) Cr.P.C. but if his intention is malafide no' such protection can be extended. The protective umbrella under Section 197(1) Cr.P.C. being a legal one can be extended to good honest hard working public servant who happens to commit offence unintentionally. But the intentional wrong doer who gets the opportunity to commit offence cannot be protected.

35. In the instant case applicant had duty to receive the cash and corresponding duty to deposit the amount in the account opened for that purpose. The accused who was in account section was aware of the rules and was supposed to deposit the cash amount on regular basis. If public money is not deposited regularly it certainly amounts to embezzlement. The contention of the applicant that there was a practice prevalent in the cash section that the amount received from sale of the coupons was not deposited on regular basis cannot be accepted. There can be no such practice when the public finances are involved. It is admitted to the applicant that the dc posits were not made on regular basis. During enquiry he gave statement admitting his accountability for the defalcated sum although he claims that he was under pressure and was made to put his signatures. But it is question of fact and can be decided in the Trial. The contention that amount was taken out from the cash chest by the then D.D.O. and his associates during his absence is also a question of fact and can be decided by the Trial Court. But on account of these facts the act of the accused in not depositing the cash regularly in the proper account is not sufficient to make sanction necessary for his prosecution. This act or omission cannot be treated to be bonafide or in discharge of official duty as his duty was to deposit the cash regularly as was received by him and not, not to deposit the same.

36. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant being accused of embezzlement and defalcation, no sanction was required for this act/omission on his part and he is not entitled to get any protection under Section 197(1) Cr.PC. Prosecution has been rightly initiated against him and the learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance in the matter. It is made clear that no comment has been made on the merits of the case. Thus the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.