### Absence of Section 197 CrPC Sanction No Bar to Prosecuting a Public Servant for Misappropriating Funds

The petitioner, a Head Teacher at Pub-Baralimari L.P. School, was entrusted with government funds (Rs. 1,64,000/-) for the construction of an additional classroom and toilet under the Sarva Siksha Abhiyan (SSA) Scheme

An enquiry revealed that the project was incomplete and deviated from sanctioned plans; prosecution witnesses testified the petitioner admitted to using the funds for his relatives' medical expenses

The trial court convicted the petitioner under Section 409 IPC, which was affirmed by the appellate court

The petitioner challenged these concurrent findings via a revision petition, primarily arguing that the prosecution was viciated for want of prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C.

Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., which requires prior government sanction only for public servants not removable from office except by or with the sanction of the Government.

K. Ch. Prasad v. Smt. J. Vanalatha Devi to establish that mere status as a public servant is insufficient to trigger Section 197.

Principles from Shadakshari v. State of Karnataka and Shambhoo Nath Misra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which clarify that misappropriation of public funds or fabrication of records is not an act performed in the discharge of official duty.

Section 409 of the IPC regarding criminal breach of trust by a public servant.

The High Court first determined that as a provincialised school headmaster, the petitioner was subject to the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, and did not belong to the limited class of public servants removable only by the Government; thus, Section 197 Cr.P.C. was inapplicable.

Even if applicable, the court reasoned that while the petitioner's office enabled the entrustment of funds, the dishonest diversion of those funds for private medical expenses bore no reasonable nexus to his official duties.

On the merits, the court noted that the prosecution successfully proved entrustment, withdrawal, and non-utilization of funds through technical reports and witness testimony.

The defence of "flood damage" was rejected as it was unsubstantiated by evidence and contradicted the petitioner’s own prior admission regarding medical expenditures.

On Issues 2 and 3, it held that the ingredients of Section 409 IPC were fully satisfied and found no perversity in the lower courts' concurrent findings.

The revision petition was dismissed, the conviction and 3-year simple imprisonment sentence were affirmed, and the petitioner was ordered to surrender within four weeks.