P. K. BISWAS, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with section 9 of the Criminal Amendment Act 1952 is directed against the judgment and order dated 5th January 1978 passed by Sri S. K. Mitra, learned Judge, 1st Special Court, Alipore in Special Case No. 17 of 1976 whereby the learned Judge was pleased to convict the accused appellants (Mongal Chandra Dey, Kashiswar Sarkar, Sudhir Mirdha alias Sushil Krishna Mirdha) under section 120b of Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each in default to suffer Rigorous Imprison for one month each and further convicting accused appellant No. 1 under section 409 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two months and acquitting one of all the charges. ( 2 ) THE facts leading to the filing of this Criminal appeal may be stated as follows: that on 22. 04. 1974 at 10 a. m. one Sushil Kumar Hore, came to the aforesaid Police Station along with some other villagers and reported that on the previous day three barrels of Diesel oil containing 600 litres of oil were received by Mongal Dey, a Chowkidar of Gazipur River Lift Irrigation Scheme No. II and on the nigh of 22. 4. 1974 at about 3 a. m. , the aforesaid Chowkidar raised alarm as "thief Thief" and being attracted with such alarm, the villagers assembled and then he stated before them that some criminals after keeping him confined at that place had stolen three barrels of diesel oil from the pump and the aforesaid representation and looking into the conduct of Chowkidar it was suspected by the villagers that the Chowkidar along with others removed the said three barrels of oils and on receipt of the aforesaid complaint, Sub Inspector Benoy Krishna Banerjee attached to the aforesaid Police Station went to the spot and on thorough search recovered three barrels from the house of Sri P. R. Biswas and thereafter Sub Inspector B. K. Banerjee started a suo moto case at the Police Station under section 409/411 of Indian Penal Code. ( 3 ) THE police took up the investigation and upon investigation it was found that the aforesaid Chowkidar Mongal Chandra Dey entered into the criminal conspiracy with the local criminals namely Kashiswar Sarkar and Sudhir Mirdha and accordingly police submitted charge-sheet against the four accused persons viz. Mongal Chandra Dey, Kashiswar Sarkar, Sudhir Mirdha and Promotho R. Biswas, since acquitted. ( 4 ) THE concerned case was eventually went before the Special Court on complaint being filed on 02. 07. 1976 and upon receipt of the complaint, the learned special Judge took cognizance and subsequently in response to the summons issued by the Special Court, the aforesaid accused persons entered their appearance. ( 5 ) IN the aforesaid case, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited certain documents and thereafter charge was framed before the learned special Judge against the accused persons, under section 409/120b of Indian Penal Code and also against Mangal Chandra Dey under section 409 of Indian Penal Code and accused Promotho Ranjan Biswas under section 411 of Indian Penal Code. The aforesaid charges being read over to the accused persons and they pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. ( 6 ) AFTER the cross-examination of the witnesses was over, the accused persons was examined under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure and ultimately upon hearing the arguments of both sides, the aforesaid impugned judgment was passed. ( 7 ) IN this case from the side of the accused/appellant, all through plea was taken as would be evident from the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, that it was only a case of false implication. ( 7 ) IN this case from the side of the accused/appellant, all through plea was taken as would be evident from the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, that it was only a case of false implication. ( 8 ) THE impugned judgment has been assailed by the learned advocate appearing for the appellants alleging mainly that in this case, the ingredients necessary for establishing of the offences under section 409 and section 120b have not been proved and that the learned special Judge has acted illegally in passing the order of conviction and sentence placing his reliance on the un-corroborated solitary evidence of alleged eye-witness namely, PW 7 Dukhiram Halder, although the aforesaid witness as per evidence and materials available on record was examined by the Investigating Officer of this case almost after 12 days of the alleged offence for which, however, no plausible explanation was offered and in a situation like this, the learned special Court was not at all justified in placing his reliance on the aforesaid uncorroborated evidence. ( 9 ) FURTHER, it has been contended on behalf of the appellant that in the instant case, prosecution for establishing the guilt of the accused persons could not establish or connect the chain of events necessary to convict the accused involved in this case. ( 10 ) FURTHER, it has been contended that since the learned Judge disbelieved the prosecution case concerning the case of Promotho Ranjan Biswas, he was, therefore, wrong in placing his reliance on the same set of materials in convicting the appellants of this case with the aforesaid punishment. ( 11 ) FURTHER, it has been contended that in the instant case, no sanction was obtained for prosecuting Mangal Chandra Dey, a public servant since the act complained of was clearly in discharge of his official duties. ( 11 ) FURTHER, it has been contended that in the instant case, no sanction was obtained for prosecuting Mangal Chandra Dey, a public servant since the act complained of was clearly in discharge of his official duties. ( 12 ) IN this connection, it has also been contended on behalf of the appellant that the convicted accused Mongal Dey being a public servant for prosecuting him in connection with this case, sanction should have been obtained and produced before the trial was concluded and that having not been done the continuance of the trial in so far as it relates to the aforesaid public servant was vitiated and the order of conviction and sentence imposed upon him without observing that sort of formalities regarding sanction should be regarded as without jurisdiction and illegal and as such it should be set aside. ( 13 ) IT has further been contended on behalf of the appellant that although PW 14 Sri S. K. Chakroborty who is the Investigating Officer in this case, in his deposition before the trial judge has stated in his evidence that he prayed for sanction order afresh and submitted charge-sheet thereafter but in fact no sanction order has either been produced or proved in connection with this case for establishing the fact that really for prosecuting Mongal Dey, a public servant such sanction was obtained. ( 14 ) ACCORDINGLY, it has been contended on behalf of the convict-appellants that for the aforesaid reasons, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the convict-appellants cannot at all sustain and it must be set aside therefore. ( 15 ) THIS claim of the appellants has, however, been resisted by the State respondent alleging that from the evidence adduced in connection with this case, the entrustment of the property and consequent mis-appropriation by way of entering into criminal conspiracy have been proved and established beyond reasonable shadow of doubt against the convict-appellants and in this connection for prosecuting a public servant namely, Mongal Dey, there is however no necessity for obtaining a sanction since there is no reasonable connection between the Act complained of and the discharge of official duty and as such no sanction is necessary in this case. So, in any event, there is no reason whatsoever for setting aside the conviction and sentence that has been imposed upon the convict-appellants and accordingly he prays for the dismissal of the appeal. ( 16 ) I have heard the respective submissions made by the parties and have also given my anxious consideration in the matter. Both the learned advocates appearing for the parties have also taken me through the evidence adduced in connection with this case before the trial judge. ( 17 ) THE learned advocate appearing for the convict-appellants has contended before me that in the instant case with regard to the entrustment of three barrels, no cogent evidence has been adduced and the trial judge was absolutely wrong in placing his reliance on the evidence of Nirapada Sardar (PW 6) and Satya (who has not been examined in this case) and no reliance can also be placed on the evidence of PW 8 Gopal Halder when in course of his cross-examination, he was categorical in saying that these barrels appear to be like those supplied by him. Furthermore, it has also been contended on their behalf that the learned trial Judge was not also justified in placing his reliance upon the evidence of PW 7 Sri Dhukhiram Halder, who has allegedly carried those three barrels in his boat which were allegedly brought into the boat by Sudhir, Mongal and Kashinath. But it has come out in his evidence that although he claimed that he was forced to carry those barrels in his boat at the ghat of Promotho Biswas and Sudhir under threat and intimidation, yet, nowhere it was disclosed by him that he, immediately after the occurrence mentioned or reported the matter either to the thana or the local gram pradhan or to any other persons. Rather his evidence in cross-examination is that he cannot say that how many days after the occurrence he was examined by the Darogababu in connection with this case and only at that time he disclosed the said fact to the Darogababu. Rather his evidence in cross-examination is that he cannot say that how many days after the occurrence he was examined by the Darogababu in connection with this case and only at that time he disclosed the said fact to the Darogababu. ( 18 ) THAT being the position, there is no justified reason for accepting the uncorroborated testimony of the witness as aforesaid when it was suggested to him in course of his cross-examination that he was severely beaten for stealing away one bunch of banana from the garden of Sudhir Babu and also for not paying the prices of the articles purchased by him from the shop of Sudhir babu. The witness of course has denied the same. ( 19 ) SO, according to them, prosecution in this case could neither prove entrustment nor could establish mis-appropriation of the property in question and as such the judgment of conviction cannot sustain. ( 20 ) IN opposing the aforesaid contentions of the appellants, it has been contended on behalf of the Respondents/state of West Bengal that PW 6 Nirapada Sarkar in course of his evidence has stated about the entrustment of the property to Mongal and no cross-examination regarding the same has been made. In such a situation even if the identification of property is not properly established, even then conviction can be maintained if the prosecution can satisfy that there was an entrustment and subsequent mis-appropriation. Similarly the evidence of PW 8 Gopal Halder regarding entrustment has not also been challenged. The same together with exhibit No. 4 clearly establishes that there was entrustment and PW 7 Dukhiram Halder in course of his evidence has emphatically said about the involvement of the present accused Mongal together with Kashiswar and Sudhir in the matter of misappropriating the oil barrels. The aforesaid fact clearly establishes that there was entrustment and consequent misappropriation by the convict appellants including Mongal. ( 21 ) THAT being the position, the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is sufficient enough to sustain a conviction as has been imposed by the learned trial Judge on these convict-appellants because the Court is to look into the quality of the evidence and not the quantity. ( 22 ) I have given my anxious consideration with regard to the submissions made by the respective parties. ( 22 ) I have given my anxious consideration with regard to the submissions made by the respective parties. It is quite needless to say that to sustain a conviction under section 409 of Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to establish two things, first is entrustment and the second is consequent misappropriation. ( 23 ) HERE, turning to the question of entrustment, it appears to me that here in the particular case, prosecution has placed their reliance on the evidence of PW 6 Nirapada Halder and PW 8 Gopal Halder. But, on close scrutiny of the evidence of those witnesses, I find that their evidence regarding entrustment of the three barrels to Mongal Dey, the Chowkidar, is far from convincing inasmuch as they failed to establish the clear identity of those three barrels, allegedly handed over to accused Mongal Dey. ( 24 ) THAT being the position, the learned trial Judge, was not at all justified in placing his reliance on the aforesaid evidence to prove the entrustment and it is more so when Satya has not been examined in this case at all and even in spite of that reference of Satya has been made in the Judgment. ( 25 ) NOW, turning to the question of misappropriation of those three barrels, it has become quite academic inasmuch as the prosecution has not been able to establish the entrustment of those properties involved in this case to Mongal Dey, but coming to the question of misappropriation, I find that the trial judge has placed his utmost reliance upon the evidence of PW 7 Dukhiram Halder. But, closely scrutinising the evidence of Dukhiram Halder and again taking into consideration the evidence adduced by PW 12 Moti Bapari, against whom claim was made that he also saw the incident in question while catching fish to bring these three barrels of oil by the boat of Dukhiram and taking it from the boat at the ghat of Promotho Biswas. But, curiously enough, in course of his evidence of PW 12, Moti has not supported the said version, even in such a situation, this witness was not declared hostile by the prosecution for the purpose of elucidating the truth by way of cross-examination. But, curiously enough, in course of his evidence of PW 12, Moti has not supported the said version, even in such a situation, this witness was not declared hostile by the prosecution for the purpose of elucidating the truth by way of cross-examination. In such a situation, upon such uncorroborated solitary evidence of PW 7, Dukhiram Halder, I am constrained to hold that the prosecution in this case has not also been able to establish the mis-appropriation of the three barrels of oil and criminal conspiracy by Mongal and Sudhir and Kashiswar to achieve that purpose. ( 26 ) THAT being the position, I am rather inclined to hold that the learned trial Judge was not justified in placing his reliance on such evidence to inflict punishment on these convict-appellants and as such the sentence and conviction imposed upon these convict-appellants cannot sustain and should be set aside therefore. ( 27 ) IN connection with the present matter, another argument has strenuously been made from the side of the convict-appellants alleging that from the evidence on record and the materials available, it has become almost clear that the convict-appellant Mongal was a public servant and as such for prosecuting him for the offence under section 409 of Indian Penal Code, sanction should have been obtained from the appellate authority and that having not done in this case, the present case suffers from serious infirmities. But looking into the materials available and specially in consideration of the fact and the circumstances available in the record and specially in consideration of the settled position of law, it is quite clear that when there is a reasonable connection between the act complained of and the discharge of the official duty and they are so inter related only in such a situation, sanction is necessary. It is now quite settled position of law that the words "any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duty" are capable of a narrow as well as a wide interpretation. If these are construed too narrowly, the section will be rendered altogether sterile, for 'it is no part of an official duty to commit an offence and never can be'. If these are construed too narrowly, the section will be rendered altogether sterile, for 'it is no part of an official duty to commit an offence and never can be'. In the wider sense these words will take under their umbrella every act constituting an offence committed in the course of same transaction in which the official duty is performed or purports to be performed. The right approach to the import of these words lies between these two extremes. While on the one hand, it is not every offence committed while engaged in the performance of official duty which is entitled to protection, an act constituting an offence directing or reasonably connected with his official duty will require sanction. It is the quality of the act that is important, and if it falls within the scope and range of his official duties, the protection is attracted. ( 28 ) THAT being the position, upon ultimate analysis of the materials available, I hold with certainty that even if no sanction is taken out for prosecuting the accused Mongal in the instant case that will not present any difficulty to prosecute Mongal under section 409 of Indian Penal Code. ( 29 ) NOW, in view of what I have stated in the foregoing paragraphs and having considered the respective submissions of the parties and looking into the materials available on record, I am of the clear opinion that in this case, the learned trial Judge was not justified in inflicting punishment upon the convict-appellant, Mongal Ch. Dey, Sudhir Mirdha and Kashiswar Sarkar under section 120b of Indian Penal Code as also under section 409 of Indian Penal Code against the accused Mongal Ch. Dey. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Judge should be set aside and the accused persons namely, Mongal Ch. Dey, Sudhir Mirdha and Kashiswar Sarkar be acquitted from the charges, levelled against them as the prosecution has not been able to bring home the guilt against the convict/appellants under section 120b/409 of Indian Penal Code as also under section 409 of Indian Penal Code against Mongal beyond all reasonable shadow of doubts. They be accordingly acquitted from this case and be set at liberty at once. Consequently, the appeal be and the same is hereby allowed. Appeal succeeds