JUDGMENT K.N. Ojha, J.
1. Instant revision has been preferred against judgment and order dated 11.5.1999 passed by IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Firozabad, in Criminal Revision No. 36 of 1994, Suresh Chand Mathur v. State of U.P. and Anr., whereby order dated 23.4.1993 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad, rejecting the application of the accused respondent Suresh Chand Mathur for protection under Section 197 Cr. P. C. was set aside.
2. Heard Sri Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA and Sri M. B. Saxena, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 and have gone through the record.
3. The fact of the case in brief is that Crime No. 114 of 1989 under Sections 420, 423, 424, 467, 471, 474 I.P.C. was registered at police station Jasrana, district Firozabad, on the application moved by the complainant Sarwan Singh in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad, who alleged that he was employed in Hinden, Ghaziabad, in Military department and was resident of village Nagla Ahmad, police station Kotwali, district Etah. He had land of 2.10 Acre in village Fatehpura Narain Singh, Pargana Mustafabad, Tehsil Jasrana, district Firozabad (earlier district Mainpuri). One Cyan Singh son of Vishan Lal Kushwaha, resident of Om Nagar, Shitiya Road, Firozabad, in collusion with other persons got forged sale deed executed on 20.1.1987 when Sharwan Singh was on his duty. About two months thereafter Gyan Singh and others armed with Lathi, spears, firearms reached the field and damaged the crop with tractor causing loss of Rs. 60,000/-. When crime was registered charge sheet was submitted against accused other than the revisionist Suresh Chand Mathur. Later on an additional charge sheet was submitted against the revisionist, who moved application under Section 197 Cr. P. C. alleging that he was a public officer and was entitled to protection under section under Section 197 Cr. P.C. There being no sanction under that Section, the case could not proceed against him.
4. After hearing both the parties in Criminal Case No. 1609 of 1990 State v. Suresh Chand Mathur, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikohabad, district Firozabad, held that additional charge sheet was submitted against Suresh Chand Mathur after making Investigation against the accused. Statements of the complainant, his brother and mother were also recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. Thumb impression of Sharwan Singh, his mother and brothers were also got examined and tallied with the thumb impressions on the sale deed by the Director, Finger Print Bureau, C.I.D. Mahanagar, Lucknow, and did not tally. Besides it while in register no. 8 Zild no. 164 maintained in the office of the Sub Registrar, Jasrana, names of five persons were mentioned in the column of sellers but only three persons had put their thumb impressions and thumb impression of rest two persons tallied with the thumb impressions of two persons out of the three, whose thumb impression was already on the register. Therefore, it was found by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate that this act on the part of the accused was not in the discharge of his official duty and therefore there no need of sanction under Section 197 Cr. P.C. to prosecute him.
5. The accused preferred Criminal Revision No. 36 of 1994, Suresh Chandra Mathur v. State of U.P., which was decided on 11.5.1999 and it was held by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, the act or omission whichever was found in the sale deed or in the register of the Sub-Registrar was In exercise of official duty of the accused, who was sub-Registrar at the time and therefore, he could not be prosecuted without prior sanction under Section 197 of Cr. P. C.
6. Some papers of the investigation are on record, which show that the accused has retired.
7. The first contention from the side of the revisionist- complainant is that since the accused has retired, therefore, he is not entitled for the protection of Section 197 of Cr. P. C. Section 197(1) of Cr. P. C. Contemplates as below:
"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) 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 the Union, of the Central Government;
(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:
[Provided that where the alleged offence was committed by a person referred to in clause (b) during the period while a proclamation issued under clause (1) of Article 356 of the Constitution was in force in a State, clause (b) will apply as if for the expression "State Government" occurring therein, the expression "Central Government" were substituted.]"
8. Earlier under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 this protection was granted to only those public servants, who were in employment during the period the offence was committed or cognizance was taken, but they were not entitled after their retirement. But In the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, Section 197 was amended and even those public servants were included who, though had retired, but the alleged offence in which they were involved was said to have been committed by them in discharge of their official duty when they were in the employment of the Government. Thus under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, not only those public servants, who were in service at the time of prosecution or cognizance of the offence was taken are entitled for protection of Section 197 of Cr. P. C. but those government servants are also entitled to the protection, who have retired provided the offence is said to have committed during their employment.
9. The respondent has cited 2004(48) ACC 275, State of Himachal Pradesh v. M P. Gupta, wherein it has been laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court that "we may mention that the Law Commission in its 41st Report in paragraph 15-123 while dealing with Section 197, as it then stood, observed "it appears to us that protection under the Section is needed as much after retirement of the public servant as before retirement. The protection afforded by the section would be rendered illusory if it were open to a private person harbouring a grievance to wait until the public servant ceased, to hold his official position, and then to lodge a complaint. The ultimate justification for the protection conferred by Section 197 is the public interest in seeing that official acts do not lead to needless or vexatious prosecution. It should be left to the Government to determine from that point of view the question of the expediency of prosecuting any public servant". It was in pursuance of this observation that the expression 'was' come to be employed after the expression 'is' to make the sanction applicable even in cases where a retired public servant is sought to be prosecuted."
10. The above position was held earlier also in AIR 1996 SC 901, R. Balakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala. Thus even though Suresh Chandra Mathur, respondent No. 1, has retired, but he is entitled for the protection under Section 197 of Cr. P.C.
11. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the act of the respondent no. 1 in this case amounts to an offence as he was in collusion with other accused persons in getting a forged sale deed executed. According to revisionist it is not the commission of offence, which is protected by Section 197 of the Cr. P. C. but it is bonafide exercise of the official duty, which is protected from false and vexatious prosecution. In support of this contention 2001 (43) ACC 516 SC, P.K. Pradhan v. State of Sikkim, has been cited in which Hon'ble the Supreme Court held that P.K. Pradhan's case the accused was claiming that in awarding contract in his capacity as Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Government of Sikkim, he did not abuse his position as a public servant but works were awarded in favour of the contractors on a rate permissible under law and not at low rates. These facts were required to be established, which could be done on trial. Therefore, it was not possible to grant relief to the appellant at that stage. In the cited case in 1983-84 State Cabinet of Sikkim decided to implement 36 Rural Water Supply Schemes at the cost of Rs. 1,62,31,630/- and while approving the proposal it was decided that work below Rs. 1,00,000/- shall be executed through Panchayat nominees. The charge was that against the procedure and below the prescribed rate the contract was given. It was laid down that the offence alleged to have been committed must have something to do or must be related in same manner with the discharge of official duty. No question of sanction can arise under Section 197 Cr. P. C. unless the act complained to of an offence. The only point for determination is whether it was committed in the 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 discharge of the duty. It was found that since it was a matter of evidence as up to what extent irregularity was committed, therefore, it required evidence and only thereafter it could be ascertained whether the accused were liable to be punished or not.
12. In the case of Hori Ram Singh v. The Crown, 1939 Federal Court Reports 159 it was laid down that "Section 197 of the Code can be confined only to such act of the public servant which are directly in pursuance of his public office, though in excess of the duty or under a mistaken belief as to the existence of such duty.........of course, if the case as put forward falls or the defence establishes that the act purported to be done in execution of duty, the proceedings will have to be dropped and the complaint dismissed on that ground".
13. The above view in Hori Ram Singh's case was approved by the Privy Council in H.H.B. Gill and Anr. v. The King, AIR 1948 Privy Council 128, wherein it was held that "a public servant can only be said to act or to purport to act in the discharge of his official duty, if his act is such as to be within the scope of his official duty. Thus a Judge neither acts nor purports to act as a Judge in receiving a bribe, though the judgment, which he delivers, may be such an act; nor does a government medical officer at or purport to act as a public servant in picking the pocket of a patient whom he is examining, though the examination Itself may be such an act. The test may well be whether the public servant, if challenged, can reasonably claim that, what he does, he does in virtue of his office."
14. In the case of Shreekantlah Ramavva Munipalli v. The State of Bombay, 1955(1)SCR 1177 it was held that "now it is obvious that if Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is construed too narrowly it can never be applied, for of course it is no part of an official's duty to commit an offence and never can be . But it is not the duty we have to examine so much as the 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."
15. In the case of Amrik Singh v. The State of Pepsu, 1955(1) SCR 1302 it was held by Hon'ble the Apex Court that "if the discharge of official duty and the act of the accused complained of are inseparable, sanction under Section 197 of the Code would be necessary".
16. In the case of Matajog Dubey v. H.C. Bhari, 1955(2) SCR 925, it was laid down by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble the Apex Court that "where a power is conferred or a duty is imposed by a statute or otherwise and there is nothing said expressly inhibiting the exercise of the power or the performance of the duty by any limitations or restrictions, it is reasonable to hold that it carries with it the power of doing all such acts or employing such means as are reasonably necessary for such execution because it is a rule that when the law commands a thing to be done, it authorises the performance of whatever may be necessary for executing its command/'
17. In this case the allegation was that the officers of the Income Tax Department forcibly broke open the entrance door and when some resistance was put, the said officers not only entered forcibly but tied the person offering resistance with rope and assaulted him causing injuries and for such act a complaint had been filed against the public officer concerned. It was held by Hon'ble the Supreme court that such a complaint could not be entertained without sanction of the competent authority as provided under Section 197 of the Code. The law was laid down that if there is a reasonable connection between act complained of and the discharge of the official duty, sanction is necessary but such connection should be reasonably, which should not be pretended or fanciful.
18. In the case of Baijnath Gupta and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1965(2) ACC 304 (SC) it was laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court sanction is necessary under Section 197 of the Code provided the alleged act was committed within the scope of official duty though may be in dereliction of them.
19. In the case of Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain v. Pandey Ajay Bhushan and Ors., 1998(36) ACC 139 (SC) it was laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court relying on Matayog Dubey's case that Section 197 Cr. P. C. is a prohibition imposed by the statute from taking cognizance and, as such, exercising jurisdiction of the court in the matter of taking cognizance and, therefore, a court will not be justified in taking cognizance of the offence without such sanction on a finding that the acts complained of are in excess of the discharge of the official duty of the Government servant concerned.
20. In 2000(41) ACC 979 (SC) Abdul Wahab Ansari v. State of Bihar and Anr., it was laid down by Hon'ble the Apex court that "we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the appellant had been directed by the Sub -Divisional Magistrate to be present with police force and remove the encroachment in question and in course of discharge of his duty to control the mob, when he had directed for opening of fire, it must be held that the order of opening fire was in exercise of the power conferred upon him and the duty imposed upon him under the orders of the Magistrate and in that view of the matter the provisions of Section 197(1) applies to the facts of the present case."
21. Likewise law was laid down in K. Satwant Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1960(2) SCR 89 and Om Prakash Gupta v. State of U.P., 1957 SCR 423.
22. In view of above rulings it is clear that for claiming protection under Section 197 of the Code, it has to be shown by the accused that there is reasonable connection between the act complained of and discharge of official duty. An official act can be performed in the discharge of official duty as well as any dereliction of it. For invoking protecting under Section 197 of the Code the acts of the accused complained to must be such that the same cannot be separated from the discharge of the official duty, but if there was no reasonable connection between that act and the performance of the official duty, then no sanction would be required.
23. Another ruling cited by the revisionist is AIR 2002 SC 2861, Raj Kishor Roy v. Kamleshwar Pandey and Anr.. In this case the appellant made a complaint that the first respondent, who was a police officer had harassed, leveled false charges and involved the appellant and his brother in false case. It was alleged that the accused threatened that the appellant had earned a lot but he had paid nothing to the police officer, therefore, a lesson was to be taught. It was held that the question whether the first respondent acted in course of performance of duties or whether pretended or fanciful can only be examined during the course of trial. If some weapon is found in illegal possession of a person, the police officer concerned has a right to arrest him and gets the case investigated. But to arrest a person simply because he did not pay money to the police officer is not connected with the official duty of a police officer. Where the charge against the police officer was that the complainant was arrested because he did not pay money demanded illegally, Hon'ble the Apex Court held that it required evidence and therefore the prosecution cannot be dropped for want of sanction under Section 197 of Cr. P.C.
24. The revisionist has also relied on 2004(48) ACC 275, State of Himachal Pradesh v. M. P. Gupta. In this case the fact was that the Controllers of Stores, Himachal Pradesh had approved a rate of contract for the purchase of galvanized steel barbed wires for fencing at the ex factory rate. The petitioner, who was Chief Conservator of Forests issued letter to all the Conservators of Forest working under him advising them to work out their requirements of Galvanized steel barbed wires and in the absence of a rate contract to place orders for the supply thereof with the H.P. Agro Industries Corporation, who had offered to make the necessary supply of the items immediately. Some of the local Units manufacturing galvanized steel barbed wires submitted a complaint to the Minister of Forest complaining against the procurement of barbed wire by the forest department from the H.P. Agro Industries Corporation in violation of the normal procedure and without obtaining the requisite non-availability certificate from the Controller of Stores. In inquiry it was reported that apparent irregularities were committed with the apparent intention for wrongful gain. It was laid down that is not part of public servant while discharging his official duty to commit forgery and therefore, Section 197 of Cr. P.C. does not the case.
25. It was further held that if on the facts it is prima-facie found that the act or omission for which the accused was charged had reasonable connection with the discharge of his duty then it must be held to be official and Section 197 Cr.P.C. is applicable.
26. It was held that prosecution cannot be stopped because it was to be ascertained as to whether the alleged act of the accused was done in the discharge of official duty or not because the allegations were about the acts committed by the accused of these cases, which were beyond the official duty. This was the reason that in some of these cases, it was directed that first evidence should be adduced only after trial it could be appreciated as up to what extent Section 197 of the Code was applicable and whether the trial was bad for want of sanction under this Section. But in instant case it is not denied that Suresh Chandra Mathur was Sub-Registrar at the time of the execution of the sale deed. A perusal of the case diary shows that there is no allegation that the accused took some bribe from the vendee Cyan Singh in getting the sale deed executed nor the conduct on the part of the accused- respondent was alleged to be in collusion with other accused except that he did not perform the duty in ascertaining the identity of the sellers and he omitted in his duty to verify that thumb impressions of two persons were repeated while being taken on the Register no. 8, which requires thumb impression of the seller on the register. A Sub-Registrar is not expected to have personal knowledge about each and every person of the Tehsil where he is posted as Sub-Registrar. If two persons become witness of the execution of the sale deed as in this case was and some persons pretended to be real tenure holders of the land and executed the sale deed and on the basis of the belief of the two witnesses the sale deed is executed there may be bonafide mistake in the identity of such persons. In the office of the Sub-Registrar not only one, also many sale deeds are executed in a day. If there are more than one seller, thumb impression of such persons and in such rush of work if thumb impression was put by three sellers and two of them again put their thumb impressions showing thumb impressions of other sellers, the possibility of bonafide mistake or omission in duty cannot be ruled out. The mistake or omission on the part of the accused- respondent in this case cannot be said to be deliberate one from the circumstances of the case. Thus the act of omission of the accused- respondent in instant case was part of the official duty and therefore, if the learned Additional Sessions Judge has held that sanction was necessary and without prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. the Sub-Registrar Suresh Chandra Mathur, who retired in 1990 could not be prosecuted, does not suffer from any illegality and therefore, the revision deserves to be dismissed.
27. The revision is dismissed.