( 1 ) IN this petition, the accused has challenged the order of the II Additional Sessions Judge, D. K. , Mangalore, passed in Cr. R. P. No. 62 of 1998 and the order of the JMFC, Sulia passed in C. C. No. 1070 of 1997 and prays this Court to quash the entire proceedings pending on the file of the JMFC, Sulia in the said criminal case. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is an Assistant Agricultural Officer, Soil and Health Centre, Shimoga. He was working as Asst. Agricultural Officer at Sulia. Upon the complaint filed by the Asst. Director of Agriculture, Sulia, police registered a criminal case against the petitioner and others for an offence punishable under Section 409, IPC. It was alleged that the petitioner and other misappropriated government funds to the tune of Rs. 1,96,913/- between the period 1991 to 1994. The I. O. after completing the investigation filed a charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 420, 409 r/w 34, IPC. The I. O. has laid eight separate charge sheets. The order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the offences alleged, was questioned before the learned Sessions Judge, on the ground that the prosecution is bad in law in the absence of sanction as required under Section 197, Cr. P. C. This question which was canvassed before the learned Sessions Judge has been rejected. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court on the same ground. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended in this petition that the petitioner is a government servant and the Government Officer cannot be prosecuted without proper sanction as required under Section 197, Cr. P. C. by the competent officer. ( 4 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Addl. SPP. Perused the impugned orders. This question of sanction as required under Section 197, Cr. P. C. cropped up again and again before the Apex Court on different circumstances and the expression of the Supreme Court is found in the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in Shambhoo Nath Misra v. State of U. P. , AIR 1997 SC 2102 : (1997 Cri LJ 2491 ). P. C. cropped up again and again before the Apex Court on different circumstances and the expression of the Supreme Court is found in the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in Shambhoo Nath Misra v. State of U. P. , AIR 1997 SC 2102 : (1997 Cri LJ 2491 ). The Supreme Court at paras 4 and 5 in the said decision held as under :"section 197 (1) postulates that "when any person who is a public servant not removable from his office, save by or with the sanction of the Government, is accused of any offence alleged 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 except with the previous sanction of the appropriate Government/authority". The essential requirement postulated for sanction to pro-secute the public servant is that the offence alleged against the public servant must have been done while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties. In such a situation, it postulates that the public servant's act is in furtherance of his performance or his official duties. If the act/omission is integral to performance of public duty, the public servant is entitled to the protection under Section 197 (1) of Cr. P. C. Without previous sanction, the complaint/charge against him for the alleged offence cannot be proceeded with the trial. The sanction of the appropriate Government or competent authority would be necessary to protect a public servant from needless harassment or prosecution. The protection of sanction is an assurance to an honest and sincere officer to perform his public duty honestly and to the best of his ability. The threat of prosecution demoralises the honest officer. The requirement of sanction by competent authority of appropriate Government is an assurance and protection to the honest officer who does official duty to further public interest. However, performance of public duty under colour of public duty cannot be camouflaged to commit crime. Public duty may provide him an opportunity to commit crime. The Court to proceed further in the trial or the enquiry, as the case may be, applies its mind and records a finding that the crime and the official duty are not integrally connected. However, performance of public duty under colour of public duty cannot be camouflaged to commit crime. Public duty may provide him an opportunity to commit crime. The Court to proceed further in the trial or the enquiry, as the case may be, applies its mind and records a finding that the crime and the official duty are not integrally connected. ( 5 ) THE question is : when the public servant is alleged to have committed the offence of fabrication of record or misappropriation of public fund etc. can be said to have acted in discharge of his official duties ? It is not the official duty of the public servant to fabricate the false record and misappropriate the public funds etc. in furtherance of or in the discharge of his official duties. The official capacity only enables him to fabricate the record or misappropriate the public fund etc. It does not mean that it is integrally connected or inseparably interlinked with the crime committed in the course of same transaction, as was believed by the learned Judge. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the view expressed by the High Court as well as by the trial Court on the question of sanction is clearly illegal and cannot be sustained. ( 6 ) THERE is no death of case law laid down by the Supreme Court on this question starting from the year 1956. The case law of the Supreme Court is found in the following cases : 1. Matajog Dobey v. H. C. Bhari, AIR 1956 SC 44 : (1956 Cri LJ 140 ). 2. Om Parkash Gupta v. State of U. P. , AIR 1957 SC 458 : (1957 Cri LJ 575 ). 3. Bakhshish Singh Brar v. Smt. Gurmej Kaur, AIR 1988 SC 257 : (1988 Cri LJ 419 ). 4. R. Balakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala, AIR 1996 SC 901 . 7. The Supreme Court has highlighted the necessity of sanction as required under Section 197, Cr. P. C. in Shambhoo Nath Misra's case (1997 Cri LJ 2491) wherein it is stated that the sanction of the appropriate Government or competent authority would be necessary to protect a public servant from needless harassment or pro-secution. The protection of sanction is an assurance to an honest and sincere officer to perform his public duty honestly and to the best of his ability. The protection of sanction is an assurance to an honest and sincere officer to perform his public duty honestly and to the best of his ability. The threat of prosecution demoralises the honest officer. The requirement of sanction by competent authority of appropriate Government is an assurance and protection to the honest officer who does official duty to further public interest. However, performance of public duty under colour of public duty cannot be camouflaged to commit crime. Therefore, in the case on hand, the present petitioner who is an agricultural officer has misappropriated the public funds and committed forgery for the purpose of cheating. Public servant cannot make use of his office to forge a public document, thereafter misappropriate public funds. Therefore, he is clearly not entitled for any protection under Section 197, Cr. P. C. as the act is not done under the colour of office. Petition is devoid of merit. Accordingly it is dismissed. Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .