K. P. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) IN this Criminal Revision, the petitioner has challenged the order of his conviction and sentence under S. 409, I. P. C. ( 2 ) PROSECUTION case in brief is that in the year 1973, the petitioner was the Sarpanch of Rakama Gram Panchayat of Khandapara in Nayagarh Sub-Division of Puri District. On 20-9-1973 he encashed a bank draft bearing No. B567000 dated 11-5-73 for a sum of Rs. 471. 71 representing the value of four loan bonds of Rs. 100/- each with interest thereon belonging to the said Gram Panchayat from Khadapara Sub-Treasury. After encashment, instead of making deposit of the amount encashed in the Gram Panchayat Office, he misappropriated the same. He did not even make the deposit when required to do so by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nayagarh by letter dated 4-5-77 and personally on 21-6-77. He made the deposit on 13-4-78. Therefore, the Block Development Officer, Bhapur lodged the F. I. R. and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner for having committed the offence under S. 409, I. P. C. ( 3 ) THE defence of the petitioner was that after encashment of the bank draft he had handed over the amount to P. W. 1, Secretary of the Gram Panchayat. Therefore, he did not misappropriate the amount. ( 4 ) THE learned Judicial Magistrate on consideration of the prosecution evidence, both oral and documentary, the explanation offered by the petitioner as well as the defence evidence, came to hold that the petitioner had encashed the bank draft for a sum of Rs. 471. 71 and without making deposit of the same in the Gram Panchayat Office, misappropriated the same. Therefore, the offence committed by him was squarely within the ambit of S. 409, I. P. C. , under which he convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months more. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Puri upheld the findings as well as the order of conviction. On being satisfied that it was a case of temporary misappropriation, he reduced the substantive sentence to six months' rigorous imprisonment while he maintained the sentence of fine. ( 5 ) MR. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Puri upheld the findings as well as the order of conviction. On being satisfied that it was a case of temporary misappropriation, he reduced the substantive sentence to six months' rigorous imprisonment while he maintained the sentence of fine. ( 5 ) MR. S. P. Misra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, did not challenge the fact that the petitioner had encashed the bank draft for a sum of Rs. 471. 71. He, however, urged that there is evidence to show that the said amount was handed over to P. W. 1, Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, and so the finding of the learned Courts below to the effect that the petitioner had misappropriated the amount cannot be supported. He further argued that the Sarpanch being a public servant was not removable from office except by orders of the State Government and as sanction for his prosecution under S. 197, Cr. P. C. had not been obtained prior to submission of the charge-sheet, the entire prosecution, conviction and sentence have been vitiated and, accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to a clean acquittal. Mr. S. K. Das, learned Additional Standing Counsel, on the other hand did not dispute the proposition in view of the principle laid down by this Court in some cases that a Sarpanch elected under the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is a public servant and is not removable from office except by orders of the State Government. If a Sarpanch commits an offence acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, he cannot be prosecuted without prior sanction under S. 197, Cr. P. C. But he contended that misappropriation of Gram Panchayat cash by a Sarpanch is not in the discharge of his official duty as such, and so, for an offence under S. 409, I. P. C. prior sanction of the State Government under S. 197, Cr. P. C. is not necessary. The contentions require careful examination. ( 6 ) I have very carefully considered the evidence, both oral and documentary, adduced by the prosecution as well as the petitioner. I have also gone through the petitioner's statement under S. 313, Cr. P. C. which contains his defence plea. P. C. is not necessary. The contentions require careful examination. ( 6 ) I have very carefully considered the evidence, both oral and documentary, adduced by the prosecution as well as the petitioner. I have also gone through the petitioner's statement under S. 313, Cr. P. C. which contains his defence plea. I have acquainted myself with the reasonings advanced by the learned Courts below in their judgments while they concurrently came to the conclusion and held that the petitioner having encashed the bank draft for a sum of Rs. 471. 71 did not deposit the amount in the Gram Panchayat Office, but had misappropriated the same until the amount was found to have been deposited on 13-4-1978. The plea of the accused that he had handed over the cash to P. W. 1 Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, immediately after encashment cannot be accepted as true because of the clear statement of P. W. 1 in his evidence that he had not received the amount from the petitioner. I have therefore absolutely no reason to believe the contention of the petitioner to the effect that he had not misappropriated the amount. On the other hand, I accept the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned Courts below and hold that the prosecution was able to clearly establish a case under S. 409, I. P. C. against the petitioner. ( 7 ) IN 1973 Cut LR (Cri) 1, (Madhab Prasad Misra v. State) Acharya, J. after discussing several provisions of the act and S. 197, Cr. P. C. held that a Sarpanch elected under the provisions thereof is a public servant and is removable from office by the State Government under S. 115 (2 ). No prosecution against him can be launched without a valid sanction from the proper authority, if the offence alleged against him was committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. An identical view was expressed in two recent decisions reported in (1986) 1 Orissa LR 137. (State of Orissa v. Mukteswar Panda) and (1985) 60 Cut LT 164, (Bishnu Prasad Mohapatra v. Ramesh Sahu ). It is, therefore, the consistent view of this Court that a Sarpanch elected under the provisions of the Act is a public servant and is removable from office under the provisions of S. 115 (2 ). (State of Orissa v. Mukteswar Panda) and (1985) 60 Cut LT 164, (Bishnu Prasad Mohapatra v. Ramesh Sahu ). It is, therefore, the consistent view of this Court that a Sarpanch elected under the provisions of the Act is a public servant and is removable from office under the provisions of S. 115 (2 ). In order to prosecute a Sarpanch for an offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, sanction under S. 197, Cr. P. C. is essential. With respect, I agree with the above conclusions. ( 8 ) THE important question, however, is whether a Sarpanch acts or purports to act in the discharge of his official duty for misappropriating or committing breach of trust of the Gram Panchayat cash. This point came directly for consideration in the decision reported in (1986) 61 Cut LT 429, (Sesadeva Nanda v. State of Orissa) in which a learned single Judge of this Court reviewed a large number of decisions of the Supreme Court and of this Court and came to hold that in a case under S. 409, I. P. C. , the official capacity is material only in connection with the entrustment and does not necessarily enter into the later act of misappropriation or conversion. So the consensus of judicial opinion is that the act of misappropriation or criminal breach of trust of the Gram Panchayat fund cannot be held to have been done while the Sarpanch acts or purports to act in the discharge of his official duty. Criminal misappropriation and criminal breach of trust are offences of purely personal character unconnected with any official duty. Therefore, I am unable to hold that the petitioner committed the offence under S. 409, I. P. C. while he acted or purported to act in the discharge of his official duty as Sarpanch. Criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust on his part was purely of personal character unconnected with his duties and functions as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. ( 9 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, the conclusion is inevitable that the conviction of the petitioner under S. 409, I. P. C. is proper and cannot be disturbed. The substantive sentence after lapse of almost 13 years of the commission of the offence, however, seems unwarranted. The amount of misappropriation was Rs. 471. ( 9 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, the conclusion is inevitable that the conviction of the petitioner under S. 409, I. P. C. is proper and cannot be disturbed. The substantive sentence after lapse of almost 13 years of the commission of the offence, however, seems unwarranted. The amount of misappropriation was Rs. 471. 71 and was subsequently found to have been deposited. It was a case of temporary misappropriation. There was no permanent loss of cash to the Gram Panchayat. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner should be visited with a lenient sentence. ( 10 ) IN the result, the Criminal Revision is dismissed subject to modification of sentence. While the conviction of the petitioner under S. 409, I. P. C. is upheld, he is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone and he is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 750/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Order accordingly. .