KANHAIYALAL S/O SHRAWAN DAMAHE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH P.S. SAONER, NAGPUR
Conviction of Court Property Clerk for Misappropriation Upheld; Sanction Under Section 197 CrPC Unnecessary for Acts Devoid of Nexus to Official Duty.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-NAG:5535
Decision Date: 08-04-2026
List of Laws
The Indian Penal Code, 1860; The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Criminal Breach of Trust by Public Servant; Sanction for Prosecution of Public Servants; Revisional Jurisdiction of High Courts
- Facts: The applicant, Kanhaiyalal Shrawan Damahe, served as a Property Clerk at the District Court in Saoner between June 2001 and May 2005. During his tenure, he was responsible for receiving "muddemal" (case property) and cash from various police stations. An internal inspection in 2005 revealed that while the applicant had issued receipts to the police, he failed to enter several properties and cash amounts into the official property registers. Investigations disclosed that he had misappropriated a total of Rs.2,45,989 and engaged in temporary misappropriation of Rs.46,929 by depositing amounts belatedly after personal use. Furthermore, several pages in the property registers were left blank or contained unverified overwriting without the required signatures of the Presiding Officer.
- Procedural Posture: The applicant was convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur, for offences under Sections 409, 466, and 477 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This conviction and the resulting five-year sentence were upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur. The applicant then filed this Criminal Revision Application before the Bombay High Court.
- Issue: 1) Whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding misappropriation and falsification of records were sustainable based on the evidence. 2) Whether the prosecution was barred for want of prior sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
- Holding: 1) Yes, the conviction is sustainable as the evidence conclusively proves entrustment and dishonest misappropriation. 2) No, prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC is not required as misappropriating public funds is not an act done in the discharge of official duty.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the revisional jurisdiction is limited to checking the legality and propriety of the order and does not allow for a re-appreciation of evidence unless there is a manifest illegality. The testimony of 14 witnesses, including court officials and police constables, established that the applicant received the property but failed to account for it. Regarding Section 197 CrPC, the Court held that for the protection of sanction to apply, there must be a reasonable nexus between the act and the official duty. Misappropriation of funds and falsification of registers cannot be considered part of a public servant's official functions; thus, "official duty is not merely a cloak for doing the objectionable act".
🔒 For Members Only