VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 537
957
guidelines issued by the Government did not give rise to any legal
right in favour of the petitioner. In the circumstances, a writ of
mandamus does not lie to enforce the guidelines, which were nothing
more than administrative instructions. Breach of those guidelines
would not give rise to any cause of action.
(537)
(A) Cr.P.C. — Sec. 197
(B) Sanction of prosecution — under sec. 197 Cr.P.C.
Sanction of prosecution under sec. 197 Cr.P.C. is
required only (i) where the accused is a public
servant not removable from office save by or with
the sanction of the Government and (ii) the offence
is committed by him in the discharge of his duties.
Bihari Lal vs. State,
2002 Cri.L.J. DEL 3715
The prosecution case is that the petitioner while working as
a Peon in the Oriental Insurance Company, misappropriated a sum
of Rs. 2,17,258 entrusted to him for depositing in the Bank. The
petitioner contended that no prosecution against him could be
launched without sanction under sec. 197 Cr.P.C.
The High Court observed that a bare reading of sec. 197
Cr.P.C. shows that for its applicability, merely being a public servant
is not enough. It has to be shown (i) that such a public servant is or
was not removable from office save by or with the sanction of the
Government and (ii) that the alleged offence should have been
committed by him while acting or purporting to act in discharge of his
duties. Petitioner was merely a peon, who could be removed by the
Divisional Manager or the Manager of the company and he is not a
public servant who could be removed only by the State or Central
Government. In the absence of any such averments, the first
ingredient necessary for invoking sec. 197 Cr.P.C. is not justified.
The High Court further held that the act of embezzlement,
fabricating false bank receipt and producing the same in proof of his
having deposited the said amount in the bank cannot be said to have