Fabricating official records falls outside official duty and requires no Section 197 CrPC sanction.

The appellant, an L.D. Clerk at the Government District Ayurveda Hospital, Varkala, was alleged to have prepared false establishment pay bills and made false entries in official records between 1994 and 1997, causing excess withdrawals from the Treasury.

The prosecution alleged misappropriation of ₹20,887 in C.C. No. 20/2009, ₹64,187 in C.C. No. 21/2009, and ₹99,454 in C.C. No. 22/2009.

The Special Judge convicted him under Sections 409, 468, 471 and 477A IPC and Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d), read with Section 13(2), of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, imposing concurrent terms of imprisonment and fines.

In appeal, the appellant disputed his responsibility for drawing or disbursing the funds, challenged the audit evidence, and contended that sanction under Section 197 CrPC was required for the IPC offences.

1. Whether the evidence established the appellant’s responsibility for the alleged misappropriations and supported his convictions under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act in the three cases.

2. Whether prosecution sanction under Section 197 CrPC was required for the IPC offences.

3. Whether the convictions or sentences warranted appellate interference.

Section 409 IPC requires proof that a public servant was entrusted with property, or had dominion over it in that capacity, and dishonestly committed criminal breach of trust; criminal breach of trust involves dishonest misappropriation, conversion, or use of entrusted property [Sadhupati Nageswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2012) 8 SCC 547].

Section 477A IPC requires that a clerk, officer, or servant wilfully falsify accounts or make false entries with intent to defraud; the judgment discusses deceit and injury as components of fraudulent intent, relying on Harman Singh v. Delhi Administration, (1976) 2 SCC 819.

The charged offences also included Sections 468 and 471 IPC and Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d), read with Section 13(2), of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Under Section 197 CrPC, sanction is required only where the alleged act has a reasonable connection with the discharge of official duty; fabrication and falsification of records are not protected official acts [Indira Devi v. State of Rajasthan (2021), as quoted at pp. 81–83].

The Court accepted the evidence that the appellant was entrusted with the establishment section’s work, including preparation of pay bills and maintenance of records, relying on Ext. P44 and the testimony of the witnesses.

The audit report and supporting records showed repeated excess withdrawals under 34 bills, while witnesses testified that the appellant prepared the bills, handled disbursements, and included amounts for persons who were not entitled to receive them.

The Court held that the Drawing and Disbursing Officers’ signatures did not absolve the appellant: the evidence indicated that they relied on the appellant’s preparation of the bills and did not independently verify the underlying entries.

It also rejected the sanction objection, finding that the alleged falsification and misappropriation were not acts done in the discharge of official duties.

It dismissed all three appeals, affirmed the convictions and sentences, cancelled the appellant’s bail and sentence-suspension orders, and directed him to surrender to serve the sentences.