JUDGEMENT Gupta, J. :- This appeal is directed against the order, dated 6th June, 1976, of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sundernagar, by which respondent was acquit-ted. 2. The brief facts are that the respondent was the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Haraboi, in the year 1965-66 and was entrusted with funds for being uti-lised for the benefit of the Panchayat or the residents of its area. Shri Dharam Singh (P.W.1) audited the accounts of the Panchayat and found that there was misappropriation of Rs. 1013-97. The respondent did not deposit this amount in spite of repeated requests. The re-spondent was suspended, vide order of Director of Panchayats, Himachal Pradesh, dated 16th June, 1970, and an en-quiry was ordered. Shri D.N. Vaidya (P.W.2) enquired into the matter and found that the respondent had embezzled (a) Rs. 846 by keeping a bill as payees receipt and (b) Rs. 34.86 by giving wrong total on the T.A. bill. The respondent was given opportunity to deposit the amount but he failed to do so with the result that the District Panchayat Offi-cer. vide letter dated 18th Nov., 1971, requested the Superintendent of Police, Mandi, to register a case of misappro-priation against the respondent. On this information a case under S.406 I.P.C. was registered against the respondent on 4th Dec., 1971 vide report No.53/71 with the Police Station, Karsog. After investigations, the challan was put in the court of Magistrate, Sundernagar, and the following charge was framed against the respondent on 24th April, 1973 : "That in the year 1965-66 at village Harabohi you being a Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Harabohi, and in such capacity were entrusted with Rs. 880-87 paise which you misappropriated to wit Rs. 846.00 paise by keeping a bill as payees receipt and Rs. 34.87 paise by giving wrong total of the bill and there-by committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the said amount as punish-able under S.409 I.P.C. and within my cognizance." 3. The respondent did not plead to the charge. 4. On behalf of the prosecution five witnesses, Dharam Singh (P.W.1), D.N. Vaidya (P.W.2), Kirpa Ram (P.W.3), Rama (P.W.4) and Shiv Ram (P.W.5) were examined. The respondent did not plead to the charge. 4. On behalf of the prosecution five witnesses, Dharam Singh (P.W.1), D.N. Vaidya (P.W.2), Kirpa Ram (P.W.3), Rama (P.W.4) and Shiv Ram (P.W.5) were examined. Then the respondent filed an application under S.107 of the Criminal P.C. praying that he be ac-quitted because the prosecution had not obtained sanction from the State Gov-ernment to launch prosecution against him and that he was public servant not removable from his office except by the sanction of Himachal Pradesh Government. The learned Magistrate vide order, dated 6th June, 1976, allowed this application and acquitted the respond-ent. 5. Shri Malkiat Singh, Assistant Advocate-General, contended that the order of the Magistrate is liable to be set aside and that in this case no sanc-tion under S.197 of the Criminal P.C. is required. 6. With the help of Shri Malkiat Singh, we also perused the records of the case. 7. At the outset we may remark that the respondent has been acquitted by the learned Magistrate and after perusal of the record of the case we are of the opinion that even on facts the respond-ent is entitled to an acquittal. In the challan a list of seven witnesses has been given, out of which five have already been examined. Tara Chand (a dealer in Arm and Ammunitions) and Bhan Singh (District Development and panchayat Officer) remained to be examined. The main witness in the case is Shri D.N. Vaidya who has conducted the enquiry. From the evidence of Shri D.N. Vaidya (P.W.2) we find that the witness has not even stated that his report, exhibit P.W.2/A, is correct. From the evidence which has been recorded, no case is made out against the respondent for misappropriation of any Panchayat funds. The chargis with respect to (a) misappro-priation of amount of Rs. 846/- by keep-ing bill as payees receipt and (b) Rupees 34.87 by giving a wrong total of the bill.The amount of Rs. 846/- was to be spent by the respondent for purchasing detonators (dynamites) to be used on the Raundy-Kumarwin Road. Kirpa Ram, Secretary, Panchayat (P.W.3) admitted that detonators were used in that road and that during the course of enquiry by Sri D.N. Vaidya from the labourers it was disclosed that detonators had been used in the road. Similarly, Rama (P.W.4) and Shiv Ram (P.W.1) have also admitted that dynamites were used on that very road. Kirpa Ram, Secretary, Panchayat (P.W.3) admitted that detonators were used in that road and that during the course of enquiry by Sri D.N. Vaidya from the labourers it was disclosed that detonators had been used in the road. Similarly, Rama (P.W.4) and Shiv Ram (P.W.1) have also admitted that dynamites were used on that very road. The only allegation of the prosecution against the respondent is that the respondent had secured the bill but that supporting vouchers were not there. We find that this is not a sufficient ground for proving criminal misappropriation of amounts because payments could be made without vouch-ers or the vouchers could be misplaced. 8. Regarding amount of Rs. 34.87, we have perused the statement, dated 21st Jan., 1966, and we find that the total is rightly calculated. We further find that the respondent deposited an amount of Rs. 880-87 on 22nd Dec., 1971. In these circumstances there is hardly any scope for sending back this case for a re-trial after such a long period (when the alleged misappropriation is of the year 1965). 9. Regarding applicability of S.197 of the Criminal P.C., we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the present case it was necessary for prosecution to have obtained sanction under S.197 of the Criminal P.C. 10. Section 197 of the Criminal P.C. reads as follows: "Prosecution of Judges and public servants:- (1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused by any offence al-leged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence ex-cept with the previous sanction- (a) xxx xxx (b) in the case of a person who is em-ployed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Govern-ment. (2) to (4) xxx xxxx." 11. (2) to (4) xxx xxxx." 11. The learned counsel for the appel-lant contended that in view of the later pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Baijnath v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1960 SC 220) : (1966 Cri LJ 179) the law as laid down in Amrik Singh v. State of Pepsu (AIR 1955 SC 309): (1955 Cri LJ 865) and Nek Ram v. The State (ILR 1973 Him Pra 762) cannot be relied upon. 12. Both Amrik Singh and Shri Nek Rams cases (supra) are based upon the views in Hori Ram Singh v. Emperor (AIR 1939 FC 43) : (1939-40 Cri LJ 468) and H.H.B. Gill v. The King (AIR 1948 PC 128): (1948-49 Cri LJ 503). In Nek Rams case (ILR 1973 Him Pra 762) (supra) a single Judge of this Court dis-tinguished Om Parkash Gupta v. State of U.P. (AIR 1957 SC 458) : (1957 Cri LJ 575). After going through the judgments we find that the correct position of law as laid down in all these judgments is that if the act complained of against the public servant was committed by him while discharging his official duty and such an act has connection with his offi-cial duties, then sanction under S.197 of the Criminal P.C. is essential. In Darshan Kumar v. Sushil Kumar Malhotra (1980 Cri LJ 154) (Him Pra) the case law has also been reviewed by one of us (Justice Handa) and after a review of the case law it was held (at p.160): "Thus the crux of the matter is that in order to determine whether in a parti-cular case a public servant is entitled to the protection of S.197, Cr.P.C. all that has to be considered is whether the act complained of against the public ser-vant which is alleged to constitute the offence, was committed by him while discharging his official duty and that such act had a reasonable connection with his official duty. It is not material whether in discharging such official duty, the public servant acted somewhat in excess of his limits.The pertinent question that next arises is as to what considerations should pre-vail and what tests need be applied for determining as to whether there was a reasonable connection between the act complained of and the official duty of the concerned public servant. Whereas it is not possible to lay down any hard and fast rules of universal application for the determination of this question, one safe and sure test in this regard would in my view be, to consider if the omission or neglect on the part of the public servant to commit the act complained of could have made him answerable for a charge of dereliction of his official duties. A negative answer to this question may not clinch the issue but if the answer to this question is in the affirmative, it may be said without the least hesitation and without any further probe that such act was committed by the public servant while acting in the discharge of his offi-cial duty and there was every connection with the act complained of and the offi-cial duty of the public servant." A perusal of the judgment in Amrik Singhs case (1955 Cri LJ 865) (SC) (supra) as well as Baijnaths case (1966 Cri LJ 179) (SC) (supra) also leads us to the conclusion that the true lest is as has been narrated in Darshan Kumars case (1980 Cri LJ 154) (Him Pra) (supra). 13. In the light of these facts, the question that arises in this case is as to whether the respondent was duty bound to discharge the acts complained of against him. Regarding first charge, the respondent had funds for utilization and he utilized the same for the purchase of detonators. The respondent got the bills regarding the purchase of detonators. It is admitted that detonators were used on the road and the cash receipts are missing. This act of the respondent was definitely within the ambit of his official duty as a Pradhan, and, therefore, there is a connection between the act and the official duty. The second charge is with respect to wrong calculation of the T.A. amounts. The respondent in his capacity as Pradhan was entitled to T.A. and it there is a wrong calculation in adding up the amounts then it is also one of the functions to which has to be performed by him in discharge of his official duties. The second charge is with respect to wrong calculation of the T.A. amounts. The respondent in his capacity as Pradhan was entitled to T.A. and it there is a wrong calculation in adding up the amounts then it is also one of the functions to which has to be performed by him in discharge of his official duties. Thus both the charges levelled against the respondent have a close connection with his official duties and in these cir-cumstances, we are of the view that in the present case it was necessary for the prosecution to have obtained sanction under S.197 Criminal P.C. 14. In view of the aforesaid discus-sion the present appeal fails which is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.