Judgment Naqui Imam, J. 1. This is an application in revision, against the order of the learned appellate Court upholding the petitioners conviction under Sec. 408, Indian Penal Code, as also the sentence of one years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000.00. The petitioner was also charged under Sections 468 and 477-A of the Indian penal Code, but he was acquitted of these charges. This application is, therefore, only concerned with the offence under Sec. 408, Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that the petitioner had committed criminal breach of trust in respect of a sum of Rs. 7,185/15/- out of freights collected by him and had in the process forged and fabricated accounts maintained by him. It is said that this petitioner was Head Goods Clerk. It was his duty to receive goods from the consignors and to see that they are delivered to the consignees. It was also his duty that if there has been an over-charge in freight, he was to deduct the surplus and return it to the consignee. It appears that the petitioner had, in this manner, retained a sum of Rs. 7,185/15/- stretching over 36 items. 3. Mr. Safdar imam appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has not challenged the facts alleged by the prosecution. He has submitted only one point, that is, that as the petitioner is a public servant and as there was no sanction ac-corded for his prosecution, the entire prosecution is without jurisdiction, and, therefore, the conviction should be set aside. It is, therefore, necessary to see whether the petitioner, who is a railway servant is, in fact, a public servant In this connection, reference may be made to sec. 137 of the Indian Railways Act (IX of 1890). Sec.137 (1) is as follows : "Every railway servant shall be deemed to be a public servant for the purposes of Chapter IX of the Indian Penal Code." Clause 4 of this section is as follows : "Notwithstanding anything in Sec.21 of the Indian Penal Code, a railway servant shall not be deemed to be a public servant for any of the purposes of that Code except those mentioned in Sub-section (1)." It is thus clear that every railway servant is not a public servant for all purposes. He is a public servant for the purpose of Chapter IX of the Indian Penal Code. He is a public servant for the purpose of Chapter IX of the Indian Penal Code. For other purposes, so far as the Indian Penal Code is concerned, he is not a public servant. The offence with which the petitioner was charged is under Sec. 408 of the Indian Penal Code, which does not fall in Chapter IX of the Indian Penal Code. This offence falls in Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code and is concerned with the offence of criminal breach of trust. It is thus clear upon the Railways Act itself that the petitioner is not a public servant. In this connection, it would be just as well to refer to a recent decision of the Supreme Court which, strictly speaking is not required to be cited for the purpose of this case in view of Sec.137 of the Indian Railways Act. However, it was observed in Om Parkash Gupta V/s. State of U. P. (S) AIR 1957 S. C. 458 (A) as follows : "No sanction is necessary to prosecute the public servant as he does not normally act in his capacity as a public servant when committing criminal breach of trust." It is quite obvious that a public servant cannot escape the penalty for want of sanction unless it is proved that the act complained of has some relation to his public duty. In the present case, it is more than obvious that the petitioner committed breach of trust in respect of the money that was given to him. This act of his, in my opinion, had no relation whatsoever with the duties that he was to perform. Even if it be held, which I do not hold, that the petitioner was a public servant, he can be prosecuted without any sanction. In my opinion, therefore, there was no need for any sanction to prosecute the petitioner. The result, therefore, is that the application is dismissed without any modification whatsoever.