Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 413 (GAU)

Gopal Ranghang v. State of Assam

2015-04-02

BIPLAB KUMAR SHARMA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Biplab Kumar Sharma, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 19.07.2012 of the learned Special Judge, Assam in Special Case No. 7/2010. By the said judgment, the accused appellant Gopal Ranghang, since expired, has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 468/471 IPC and Section 409 IPC. While for the offence under Section 468/471, he has been sentenced to undergo RI for 4 years with fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default to undergo RI for 1 year, in respect of the offence under Section 409 IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default to undergo RI for 6 months. Both the sentences are to run concurrently and the period of detention during investigation and trial is to be set off against the period of imprisonment. Although the proceeding was against three accused persons including the present appellant, but the other two accused persons, namely Sagar Samrat Gupta and Dipak Kr. Talukdar have been acquitted on benefit of doubt. It will be pertinent to mention here that during pendency of this appeal, the accused appellant died and in terms of the order passed on 23.2.2015 in Crl. Misc. Case No. 116/2015, his legal heirs, i.e. the wife, son and daughters have entered into his shoes. According to the prosecution case, the accused appellant while serving as Block Development Officer (BDO) of Tihu Development Block entered into a criminal conspiracy with the other two accused persons to defraud the State exchequer to the tune of Rs. 40,00,000/- by showing purchase of GCI sheets and ridging for Tihu Block Development Office. Be it stated here that accused Sagar Samrat Gupta was the proprietor of M/S Allied Business Corporation, Guwahati and accused Dipak Kr. Talukdar was the owner of the particular premises, which was taken on rent by the accused appellant for the purported official purpose. 2. Although the accused appellant handed over charge of BDO on 9.4.2008 to Project Director, Nalbari, he placed an order with M/s. Allied Business Corporation, Guwahati for supplying 1000 bundle of GCI sheets and 12000 ft. ridging to Tihu Development Block and the said proprietor allegedly submitted fake challan of delivering those materials to the block office. 2. Although the accused appellant handed over charge of BDO on 9.4.2008 to Project Director, Nalbari, he placed an order with M/s. Allied Business Corporation, Guwahati for supplying 1000 bundle of GCI sheets and 12000 ft. ridging to Tihu Development Block and the said proprietor allegedly submitted fake challan of delivering those materials to the block office. Thereafter the accused collected a cheque book from Central Bank of India, Nathkuchi Branch and issued one cheque in favour of the Allied Business Corporation for Rs. 40,00,000/-. 3. According to the prosecution, the said secret deal came to light when M/s. Allied Business Corporation, Guwahati insisted the Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari for payment against the materials allegedly supplied to Tihu Development Block. On 24.6.2008, the then BDO, namely, Sri Gaya Prasad Agarwal requested the Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari for lodging an FIR with the O/C of Tihu Police Station and consequent upon such lodging of FIR narrating the aforesaid facts, Tihu P.S. Case No. 42/2008 was registered under Section120B/420/468/471 IPC. 4. During investigation, the GCI sheets and ridging, which were shown delivered to BDO, Tihu were found stored in the residence of accused Dipak Kr. Talukdar and those materials and related incriminating documents were seized by the I/O. Completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the three accused persons under Section 120(B)/420/468/471 IPC r/w Section 13(1)(c)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 5. Upon appearance, charge was framed against the accused appellant under Section 409 IPC r/w Section 13(1)(c)/13(2) P.C. Act. He was also charged along with the other two accused persons under Section 120(B)/468/471 IPC. 6. During trial, prosecution examined 20 witnesses. The statements of the accused persons were also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Learned Trial Court raising the following points for determination having answered the same against the accused appellant towards conviction and sentence vide the impugned judgment, he had preferred this appeal. "(i) Whether accused Gopal Ranghang BDO Tihu Devi Block, Sagar Samrat Gupta proprietor of M/s. Allied Business Corporation and Dipak Kr. Talukdar owner of the rented house of Tihu Hatkhula during the period from February to July 2008 made criminal conspiracy among themselves in order to misappropriate a sum of Rs. 40 lacs belonging to the Govt. of Assam by making false documents within the meaning of section 120(B). Talukdar owner of the rented house of Tihu Hatkhula during the period from February to July 2008 made criminal conspiracy among themselves in order to misappropriate a sum of Rs. 40 lacs belonging to the Govt. of Assam by making false documents within the meaning of section 120(B). (ii) Whether accused Gopal Ranghang being public servant in the capacity of BDO, Tihu Development Block entrusted with Rs. 42,99,000/- during the period from February to July 2008 committed criminal breach of trust in respect of that amount within the meaning of Section 409 IPC. (iii) Whether accused Gopal Ranghang in his capacity as former BDO, Tihu Development Block committed criminal misconduct by fraudulently misappropriating the sum of Rs. 42,99,000/- within the meaning of Section13(1)(c)/13(2) P.C. Act. (iv) Whether accused Dipak Kr. Talukdar possessed 6212 pcs 8 ft. long GCI sheets and 1026 pcs of ridging in his house at Tihu Hatkhola knowing it to have been misappropriated by accused BDO Gopal Ranghang within the meaning of Section 411 IPC. (v) Whether accused Sagar Samrat Gupta being proprietor of M/s. Allied Business Corporation Ltd., Guwahati pretending to supply GCI sheets and ridging to the Govt. of Assam dishonestly misappropriated a sum of Rs. 40 lacs from the State exchequer by getting the cheque issued in favour of M/s. Allied Business Corporation Ltd. by co-accused Gopal Ranghang, BDO, Tihu Devi. Block within the meaning of Section 409 IPC. (vi) Whether the said three accused persons during the said period fraudulently used the forged cheque dated 19.5.2006 for Rs. 40,00000/- false material supply challan of supplying 1000 bundle of GCI sheets and 12000 ft. ridging to Tihu Development Block by M/s. Allied Business Corporation Ltd., and false supply order allegedly given by Gopal Ranghang BDO, Tihu Block, false bill of supply of those articles by the said business firm as genuine documents within the meaning of Section 468/471 IPC." 7. ridging to Tihu Development Block by M/s. Allied Business Corporation Ltd., and false supply order allegedly given by Gopal Ranghang BDO, Tihu Block, false bill of supply of those articles by the said business firm as genuine documents within the meaning of Section 468/471 IPC." 7. PW-1 Sri Gaya Prasad Agarwal is the complainant and present BDO of Tihu Development Block, PW-2 Sri Bhagwat Sarup Gupta is the father of accused Sagar Samrat Gupta, PW-3 Sri Promod Basumatary is Police Constable of Paltanbazar PS, PW-4 Sri Sagar Bikash Gupta is the brother of accused Sagar Samrat Gupta, PW-5 Sri Dhruba Bharali is Junior Engineer, Tihu Block, PW-6 Sri Jakir Hussain is Junior Engineer of Tihu Block, PW-7 Sri Hatim Ali is the Driver of BDO Gopal Ranghang, PW-8 Sri Paragsen Talukdar and PW-9 Sri Rajib Baishya are neighbor of the accused person, PW-10 Sri Didhyadhar Haloi, PW-11 Sri Jagat Ch. Pathak and PW-17 Sri Likat Choudhury are Gram Sevaks of Tihu Block, PW-12 Sri Lakhi Patowary is UDA of Tihu Development Block, PW-13 Binoy Ch. Choudhury is Branch Manager of Central Bank of India, Nathkuchi Branch, PW-14 Bijoy Sarma is Junior Engineer of Tihu Development Block, PW-15 Sri Jouchandra Saikia is Police Constable, PW-16 Sri Sanjay Das is labourer, PW-18 Sri Dhruba Bora Addl. SP, PW-19 Sri Suren Machari Addl. SP and PW-20 Rohini Kr. Talukdar S/I of Police are the I/Os of the case. 8. PW-1 in his deposition stated that he had joined as BDO at Tihu Development Block after taking charge from his predecessor Smt. Rituparna Thakuria After such joining, he came to know from the Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari about the bill submitted by M/s. Allied Business Corporation, Guwahati for supplying 1000 bundle of GO sheet and 12000 ft. ridging to Tihu Development Block. Going through the official records, he came to know that no such order for supplying those articles was issued from the office of the Tihu Development Block. In the stock register of the block also, he did not found any such material supplied by M/s. Allied Business Corporation, Guwahati. Thereafter, as per the direction of the Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari he lodged an FIR (Ext.-1) against the accused persons. He in his deposition stated that the accused had handed over the charge of BDO to Project Director, DRDA, Nalbari. 9. Thereafter, as per the direction of the Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari he lodged an FIR (Ext.-1) against the accused persons. He in his deposition stated that the accused had handed over the charge of BDO to Project Director, DRDA, Nalbari. 9. PW-2 in his deposition stated that on 25.6.2008, police officials of Tihu Police Station and Paltanbazar Police Station came to his office and seized one bounce cheque bearing No. 000786 (sic) issued by BDO, Tihu on 14.5.2008 (sic) for Rs. 40,00,000/- in favour of M/s. Allied Business Corporation, Guwahati (M-Ext.-1). It is submitted by the learned counsel representing the parties, in consultation with the records that in fact, the cheque No. 000876 and the date is 19.5.2008. According to PW-2, the police also seized carbon copy of bill for Rs. 42,99,000/- (M-Ext.-2), one supply order (M. Ext.-3), one supply challan of 1000 bundle of GCI sheets and ridging 12000 feet (M. Ext.-4) and one return memo for Rs. 40 lacs (M. Ext.-5). PW-2 further deposed that M. Ext.-3 supply order was issued on 3.3.2008 by the BDO, Tihu for supply of GCI (1000 bundle) @ 3999 per bundle and ridging 12000 feet @ 25/- per feet. On the basis of the supply made, the accused appellant issued the cheque in question, which was deposited with the Federal Bank, but the cheque was dishonored by Central Bank of India by return memo on the ground that full cover no received and drawers signature differed with the specimen on record. 10. PW-3 is the police constable, who, on 25.6.2008 had accompanied the police personnel of Tihu Police Station to a place near Chatribari Petrol Pump and witnessed the seizure of one cheque, challan and other document vide Ext.-2. PW-4 in his deposition stated that on 25.6.2008, police had seized one cheque, challan, bill and order copy vide Ext.-2 from the office of the M/s. Allied Business Corporation, Guwahati in presence of his father and elder brother. PW-5 is the JE of Tihu Development Block, who in his deposition stated that on 27.6.2008 as per the direction of the BDO, he accompanied the police personnel to the residence of the accused Dipak Kr. Talukdar wherefrom 6212 pcs of GO sheets of 8 ft. long size and 1026 pcs of 8 ft. long size ridging were found and sized vide Ext.-3 in his presence. Talukdar wherefrom 6212 pcs of GO sheets of 8 ft. long size and 1026 pcs of 8 ft. long size ridging were found and sized vide Ext.-3 in his presence. He also stated that those materials were kept under lock and key in a room of the house of accused Dipak Talukdar and the seizure was made by breaking the lock, which was also seized (Ext.-6) in his presence. 11. According to PW-6, the accused appellant joined as BDO of Tihu Development Block in the month of December, 2006 and continued upto 9.4.2008, on which date, he handed over charge of his office to the Project Director Sri Dinesh Ch. Nath of DRDA, Nalbari. Thereafter said Sri Nath handed over the charge of BDO to the Circle Officer Smt. Rituparna Thakuria on 11.4.2008 from whom Gaya Prasad Agarwal, BDO took over the charge on 6.6.2008. He in his deposition proved the charge handing over memo dated 9.4.2008 of the accused appellant (Ext.-7) and also his signature [M. Ext.-7(2)]. 12. PW-11 was serving as Gram Sevak of Tihu Block. He, in his deposition stated that as per the direction of the then BDO, he had accompanied the police to the residence of the accused Dipak Talukdar, where he witnessed the seizure of the aforementioned GCI sheets and ridging. He was also witness to the seizure of M. Ext.-12 letter dated 6.6.2008 of the Branch Manager of Central Bank of India and the certificate of transfer of charge of the accused appellant (M. Ext.-7). 13. According to PW-7 Hatim Ali, on 25.6.2008 while he was working as driver of the car of Block Development Officer Gopal Ranghang of Tihu Block he was present in his house at Jatia, Guwahati when police seized one cheque book vide Ext.-5 in his presence. M Ext.-8 is the said document PW-8 Parag Sen Talukdar and PW-9 Rajib Baishya have stated that one day police went to the residence of accused Dipok Talukdar and seized house rent agreement between Deepak Talukdar and Gopal Ranghang. M. Ext.-9 is the said agreement. PW-10 Sri Bidyadhar Haloi has stated that on 27.6.08 while he was serving as Gram Sevak in the office of BDO Tihu, Police seized one Issue Register from Accountant Lakhi Patowary vide Ext.-7. M. Ext.-10 is the said Issue Register w.e.f. 27.7.06 onwards. M. Ext.-9 is the said agreement. PW-10 Sri Bidyadhar Haloi has stated that on 27.6.08 while he was serving as Gram Sevak in the office of BDO Tihu, Police seized one Issue Register from Accountant Lakhi Patowary vide Ext.-7. M. Ext.-10 is the said Issue Register w.e.f. 27.7.06 onwards. Along with this register one transaction list for HSS/CD/CC/UD accounts of Central bank of India was seized and M. Ext.-11 is the said transaction list. 14. PW-12, in his deposition stated about seizure of the Issue Register (M. Ext.-10) and Bank statement (M. Ext.-11). He also stated that the accused appellant was serving as BDO from 2006 to 9.4.2008, on which date, he handed over charge to Project Director Dinesh Chandra Nath, who in turn handed over the charge first to aforementioned Rituparna Thakuria on 6.6.2008 and thereafter to Gaya Prasad Agarwal. 15. PW-13 Binoy Chandra Choudhury stated that on 6.6.08 while he was serving as Head Assistant of Central Bank of India their Manager Sri B.C. Kalita wrote a letter to BDO Tihu Shri Gopal Ranghang. On 19.5.08, the accused appellant came to their Branch office and took a cheque book containing 25 cheques from 000876 to 000900 issued in the name of BDO Tihu. The cheque No. 000876 (M. Ext. 1) dated 19.5.08 was issued by BDO in favour of M/s. Allied Business Corporation for Rs. 40 lakhs. M. Ext. 8 is the cheque book M. Ext.-1 (1) is the signature of the accused appellant. He also stated that the cheque book was given to the accused appellant because he told that he had already joined as BDO and he would deposit Rs. 5 crores in their Bank. Since BDO Tihu Block had Rs. 36 lakhs in its account and if the same was withdrawn from their Bank then the deposit in their Bank would decrease and because of this reason he handed over the cheque book to the accused person and later he came to know from the office of the BDO Tihu that the accused appellant had not joined as BDO Tihu Development Block. 16. PW-14 stated that in 2005 he joined as JE at Tihu Development Block and the accused appellant was serving as BDO from September, 2006 to April, 2008. In the month of April 2008 the accused appellant handed over the charge to Project Director Mr. 16. PW-14 stated that in 2005 he joined as JE at Tihu Development Block and the accused appellant was serving as BDO from September, 2006 to April, 2008. In the month of April 2008 the accused appellant handed over the charge to Project Director Mr. Nath and after 10 to 15 days the Project Director handed over the charge to Tihu Circle Officer but after some days she handed over the charge to Gaya Prasad Agarwal. 17. PW-15, in his deposition stated that he had accompanied Tihu police personnel to the residence of the accused appellant at Jatia under Dispur Police Station wherefrom one cheque book of Central Bank of India, Nalbari Branch was seized. PW-16 is also seizure witness, who in his deposition stated that on 26.6.2008 he accompanied police personnel to the residence of the accused Dipak Talukdar along with 10/15 labourers for loading GCI-sheets and ridging in a truck, which were brought to Tihu Police Station and were unloaded. Police seized those articles vide Ext.-3 in his presence. 18. PW-17 stated that while he was serving as Gram Sevak of Tihu Development Block, Gaya Prasad Agarwal was the BDO and on 30.6.2008 Tihu police seized the documents relating to charge handing over and taking over report of the accused appellant (M. Ext.-7). He is also a seizure witness of the M. Ext.-12 letter of Central Bank of India, Nalbari Branch, 19. PW-18 had submitted charge sheet against the accused persons as aforesaid. PW-19 in his deposition stated that the case was endorsed to him for investigation, during which, he has recorded the statement of one Ratan Patgiri. During investigation, he also sent specimen signature of the accused appellant to the Director of FSL for examination. PW-20 was the S/I of police, Tihu Police Station. He in his deposition stated about lodging of the FIR (Ext.-1) by Sri Gaya Prasad Agarwal, on the basis of which, Tihu P.S. Case No. 42/2008 was registered under Section 120B/ 420/468/471 IPC. He generally stated about the investigation that was carried out. 20. It is on the basis of the aforesaid evidence including the documents exhibited, the learned Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as aforesaid. Mr. He generally stated about the investigation that was carried out. 20. It is on the basis of the aforesaid evidence including the documents exhibited, the learned Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as aforesaid. Mr. P. Kataky, learned counsel for the accused appellant submits that the learned Trial Court committed manifest error of law in convicting the accused appellant without there being prosecution sanction accorded by the competent authority. Referring to the relevant provision of Prevention of Corruption Act, he submits that in absence of prosecution sanction to prosecute the accused appellant granted by the competent authority, the learned Trial Court could not have proceeded with the proceeding. He further submits that the conviction of the accused appellant under Section 468/471 IPC and so also under Section 409 IPC is not sustainable in law inasmuch as the ingredients towards constituting an offence punishable under the said sections are missing in the case. To buttress his argument, he has placed reliance on the decision reported in (2005) 8 SCC 370 (State of Karnataka v. C. Nagarajaswamy). 21. Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. P.P., Assam, on the other hand, submits that there being virtual admission on the part of the accused appellant of the commission of the offence, for which, he has been punished by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, the present appeal is misconceived. According to him, there being overwhelming evidence supporting the case of the prosecution, there is no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction. 22. From the aforesaid evidence what has emerged is that the accused appellant had handed over the charge of his office of BDO on 9.4.2008 of Tihu Development Block office. If that be so, he was not the authority to issue cheque pertaining to the said block on 19.5.2008 for the amount of Rs. 40 lacs. The said cheque was issued in favour of M/s. Allied Business Corporation for the alleged supply of the aforesaid quantity of GCI sheets and ridging. It is in the evidence of PW-1 i.e. the succeeding BDO that the official records including stock register did not disclose placing of any order to supply those materials from the office of the Tihu Development Block and receipt of the materials. Admittedly the cheque book, from which the particular cheque for the amount of Rs. It is in the evidence of PW-1 i.e. the succeeding BDO that the official records including stock register did not disclose placing of any order to supply those materials from the office of the Tihu Development Block and receipt of the materials. Admittedly the cheque book, from which the particular cheque for the amount of Rs. 40 lacs was issued was recovered from the possession of the accused appellant, a fact, he did not deny in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In reply to the question No. 12 regarding issuance of the cheque in favour of the M/s. Allied Business Corporation for Rs. 40 lacs and the evidence of PW-13 that the accused appellant had visited the Central Bank of India, Nathkuchi Branch on 19.5.2008 and took the cheque book containing 25 cheques from 000876 to 000900 issued in the name of BDO, Tihu Development Block and that he had issued the cheque bearing No. 000876 on 19.5.2008 in favour of M/s. Allied Business Corporation for Rs. 40 lacs and that the cheque book was given to him as it was disclosed to PW-13 by the accused appellant that he had rejoined as BDO and would deposit Rs. 5 crores with the bank, the accused appellant replied:-- "yes I issued the cheque and it was bounced. I brought the cheque book but I did not tell that I would deposit Rs. 5 crore." 23. Apart from the above, the accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. simply denied handing over charge as BDO, Tihu on 9.4.2008 to Project Director Sri Dinesh Ch. Nath. In the answer to question No. 5 he stated that he took the residence of accused Dipak Talukdar on rent for storing the official goods because there was no godown in their office at that time. In reply to the question No. 12 he stated that he issued the cheque No. 000876 (M. Ext.-1) dated 19.5.2008 but it was bounced. He also admitted that he brought the cheque book (M. Ext.-8) from branch Manager, Central Bank of India but he did not tell him that he would deposit Rs. 5 crores. In reply to the question No. 14, he also stated that PW-15 went to his residence on 25.6.2008 to seize the cheque book containing cheque No. 000877 to 000900. In reply to the question No. 20 he has also admitted that PW-20 Ruhini Kr. 5 crores. In reply to the question No. 14, he also stated that PW-15 went to his residence on 25.6.2008 to seize the cheque book containing cheque No. 000877 to 000900. In reply to the question No. 20 he has also admitted that PW-20 Ruhini Kr. Talukdar seized the cheque dated 19.5.2008 of Central Bank of India for Rs. 40 lacs from the office of M/s. Allied Business Corporation, Guwahati. 24. In reply to the question put to the co-accused Sagar Samrat Gupta, he stated that after getting the supply order from the accused appellant, he supplied the materials, which were kept in the residence of the other co-accused Dipak Talukdar. The materials were kept with him as was directed and shown by the accused appellant. In reply to the question No. 27, he also stated that he believed that the accused appellant was still serving as BDO of Tihu Block. 25. Similarly, the other co-accused Dipak Talukdar in reply to the question No. 5 stated that the aforesaid materials were kept with him by the accused appellant taking his house on rent with monthly rent of Rs. 1000/-. In reply to the question No. 8 he stated that Ext.-9 rent agreement was executed between him and the accused appellant. He also admitted that the police had seized the materials from his house on 30.6.2008. Replying to another question, he also stated that the house was given on rent on the request of the accused appellant. 26. Ext.-9 is the said house rent agreement executed between the accused appellant and the co-accused Dipak Talukdar. Although the accused appellant identified himself as the BDO of Tihu Development Block, but nothing was indicated in the said agreement as to for what purpose the house was taken on rent except stating "for his official purpose". In the agreement there was also no mention about the authorization of the accused appellant to make use of the rented house for official purpose. 27. As discussed in the impugned judgment of conviction, the evidence of PW-6, PW-12, PW-14 and PW-17 has shown that the accused appellant had handed over the charge of BDO to Project Director, DRDA Sri Dinesh Ch. Nath on 9.4.2008. On perusal of M. Ext.-7 it is seen that accused appellant had handed over charge to the Project Director, DRDA, Nalbari on 9.4.2008 at 5 O'clock in the afternoon. Nath on 9.4.2008. On perusal of M. Ext.-7 it is seen that accused appellant had handed over charge to the Project Director, DRDA, Nalbari on 9.4.2008 at 5 O'clock in the afternoon. According to the accused appellant he was placed under suspension because of the incident of this case. Thus after going through the oral and documentary evidence it is found that the accused appellant had handed over the charge of BDO to Dinesh Ch. Nath, Project Director, DRDA, Nalbari on 9.4.2008. 28. PW-13 in his evidence stated that on.19.5.2008, the accused appellant came to the bank i.e. Central bank of India, Nathkuchi Branch and took the cheque book in question that was issued in the name of BDO, Tihu from where he issued the particular cheque in favour of the M/s. Allied Business Corporation for Rs. 40 lacs. Explaining the reason of handing over cheque book to the accused appellant, he in his deposition stated that the accused appellant had assured that he would deposit 5 crores in their bank. At that point of time, there was deposit of Rs. 36,00,000/-. From this piece of evidence of PW-13, it is clear that the accused appellant projected himself as BDO of Tihu Development Block and got the cheque book issued by the Central Bank of India, Nathkuchi Branch. He took the same and issued the cheque in question in favour of M/s. Allied Business Corporation for Rs. 40 lacs. 29. From the above evidence what has clearly emerged is that the accused appellant, although had demitted his office of BDO of Tihu Development Block on 9.4.2008, but projecting himself as BDO of the said Block got the cheque book issued from the bank and he took the same and thereafter issued the particular cheque on 19.5.2008 for Rs. 40 lacs. It has also emerged that the particular house belonging to the co-accused was taken on rent by him executing the Ext.-9 rent agreement simply mentioning therein that the house was required "for his official purpose". As discussed above, nothing was mentioned in the agreement as to whether he was authorized to enter into such agreement on behalf of the Government and also as to whether the house of the co-accused Dipak Talukdar was to be made use of as godown of the office. 30. As discussed above, nothing was mentioned in the agreement as to whether he was authorized to enter into such agreement on behalf of the Government and also as to whether the house of the co-accused Dipak Talukdar was to be made use of as godown of the office. 30. In the aforesaid circumstances, if the learned Trial Court has convicted the accused appellant under Section 468/471 IPC and also under Section 409 IPC, I see no reason to interfere with the same. Although Mr. Kataky, learned counsel representing the accused appellant referring to the ingredients towards constituting the offence punishable under the said sections submits that the ingredients are missing in the instant case. But, on perusal of the aforesaid evidence, it is clearly established that the accused appellant has committed the offence punishable under the said sections. 31. This now leads us to the submissions of Mr. Kataky, learned counsel for the accused appellant that the learned Trial Court ought not to have proceeded with in absence of prosecution sanction. This aspect of the matter has been discussed by the learned Trial Court elaborately in the impugned judgment. The learned Trial Court duly took note of the fact that there was no prosecution sanction against the accused appellant. Section 3 of the P.C. Act, 1988 gives power to appoint Special Judge. The Central Government or the State Government may, by notification in the official gazette, appoint as many special Judges as may be necessary for such area or areas or for such case or group of cases as may be specified in the notification to try the following offences: "(a) any offence punishable under this Act; and (b) any conspiracy to commit or any attempt to commit or any abetment of any of the offences specified in clause (a)." 32. Section 4 mentions the cases triable by Special Judges, under which when trying any case, a special Judge may also try any offence, other than an offence specified in section 3, with which the accused may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) be charged at the same trial. Section 19 deals with previous sanction necessary for prosecution. No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7, 10,11,13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction. 33. It is submitted by Mr. Section 19 deals with previous sanction necessary for prosecution. No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7, 10,11,13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction. 33. It is submitted by Mr. Kataky, learned counsel for the accused appellant that in the instant case such previous sanction was required to be obtained from the competent authority of the State Government as the accused appellant was a State Government employee. Learned Trial Court discussing the issue relating to prosecution sanction and the conduct of the accused appellant throughout the proceeding has held that the aforesaid provision cannot lead to a situation in which the finding of the Special Judge can be reversed or altered by the appellate or revisional court on the ground of the absence of, or any error or omission or irregularity in the sanction required under sub-sec. (1), if the Court is of the opinion that because of this absence or error there is no failure of justice as because the accused person has not raised objection of absence of prosecution sanction at an early stage in the proceedings. 34. In the instant case, the learned Trial Court took cognizance of the offence vide order dated 4.12.2010 and the charge sheet was filed under Section 120(B)/420/468/471 IPC read with Section 13(1)(c)(d)/13(2) P.C. Act against the accused appellant. On 3.1.2011 the accused appellant's counsel prayed for adjournment for illness of the accused person. On 4.2.2011 the accused appellant was allowed to go on bail of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of like amount and his bail bond was accepted. From 8.3.2011 on 8 continuous dates till 20.09.2011, the accused appellant had been present with his learned advocate. On 28.9.2011 charge under Section 120(B)/471 IPC and a separate charge under Section 409 IPC r/w section 13(1)(c)/13(2) P.C. Act was framed against the accused appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter the accused appellant had been present on 14 consecutive dates. On 4.7.2012 statement of the accused appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. During this period from 4.12.2010 to 4.7.2012 the accused appellant never raised any objection of absence of prosecution sanction. It was only on 13.7.2012, in the course of argument, learned counsel representing the accused raised the question of sanction for the first time. On 4.7.2012 statement of the accused appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. During this period from 4.12.2010 to 4.7.2012 the accused appellant never raised any objection of absence of prosecution sanction. It was only on 13.7.2012, in the course of argument, learned counsel representing the accused raised the question of sanction for the first time. Be it stated here that on conclusion of the hearing on 13.7.12, the impugned judgment was delivered within 6 days thereafter i.e. on 19.7.2012. 35. In C. Nagarajaswamy (supra) on which the learned counsel for the accused appellant has placed reliance, the Apex Court held that grant of proper sanction by a competent authority is a sine qua non for taking cognizance of the offence. At the same time, it has also been held that it is desirable that the question as regards sanction may be determined at an early stage. It has also been held that ordinarily, the question as to whether a proper sanction has been accorded for prosecution of the accused persons or not is a matter which should be dealt with at the stage of taking cognizance. It was in the context of the question that was raised whether the authority granting the sanction was competent therefore or not, it was held that sanction by competent authority is a sine qua non for taking cognizance of an offence in respect of a public servant. 36. Above apart, the offence alleged and established against the accused appellant cannot be said to be in course of his employment He was no longer BDO of Tihu Development Block, but yet projected himself as BDO of the said block and did the mischief firstly by obtaining the cheque book from the bank unauthorizedly and thereafter issuing the particular cheque also unauthorisedly. Not only that, he also took on rent the house from the co-accused "for his official purpose" and kept the materials there instead of keeping in the official godown. Not only that, he also took on rent the house from the co-accused "for his official purpose" and kept the materials there instead of keeping in the official godown. As has been held by the Apex Court in Amrik Singh v. State of Pepsu reported AIR 1955 SC 309 , if the acts complained of are so integrally connected with the duties attaching to the office as to be inseparable from them, then sanction under Section 197(1) would be necessary; but if there was no necessary connection between them, and the performance of those duties, the official status furnishing only the occasion or opportunity for the acts, then no sanction would be required. 37. A little reference to the facts involved in Amrik Singh case (Supra) may not be out of place here. The accused was a Sub-divisional Officer in the Public Works Department of Pepsu. It was a part of his duties to disburse the wages to workmen employed in certain works. The procedure usually followed was that he drew the amount required from the Treasury and disbursed the amount to the employees against their signatures or thumb impressions in the Monthly Acquaintance Roll. Payment was shown to have been made to one Parma for the month of April, 1951. The accused was prosecuted on the allegation that Parma was non-existent and the thumb impression in the Acquaintance Roll was of the accused himself. He was charged with misappropriation of the wages. Repelling the contention that conviction was un-sustainable for wants of sanction under Section 197 of the Code in respect of the offences under Section 409 and 465 of the IPC, the Apex Court held thus: "If the acts complained of are so integrally connected with the duties attaching to the office as to be inseparable from them, then sanction under S. 197(1) would be necessary; but if there was no necessary connection between them and the performance of those duties, the official status furnishing only the occasion or opportunity for the acts, then no sanction would be required." 38. In Shabhoo Nath Misra v. State of U.P. reported in AIR 1997 SC 2102 , when it was found that the offence alleged was that of fabrication of records and misappropriation of public fund by public servant, the Apex Court held that the same being not an official duty, sanction for prosecution was not necessary. 39. In Shabhoo Nath Misra v. State of U.P. reported in AIR 1997 SC 2102 , when it was found that the offence alleged was that of fabrication of records and misappropriation of public fund by public servant, the Apex Court held that the same being not an official duty, sanction for prosecution was not necessary. 39. In the matter of granting sanction, it is to be seen as to whether the offence alleged is an act alleged to have been committed by the public servant while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. The said aspect of the matter has also been discussed by the learned Trial Court in para-graph-30 of the impugned judgment, which is quoted below: "In reply to the point of sanction raised by the Ld. Defence advocate it would quite relevant to quote the legal ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Prakash Singh Bada v. State of Punjab AIR 2007 SV 1274 wherein it is observed that the protection given under Section 197 is to protect responsible public servants against the institution of possibly vexatious criminal proceedings for offences alleged to have been committed by them while they are acting or purporting to act as public servants.... Before Section 197 can be invoked, it must be shown that the official concerned was accused of an offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties. It is not the duty which requires examination so much as the act, because the act can be performed both in the discharge of the official duty as well as in dereliction of it. The act must fall within the scope and range of the official duties of the public servant concerned. It is the quality of the act which is important and the protection of this section is available if the act falls within the scope and range of his official duty. There cannot be any universal rule to determine whether there is a reasonable connection between the act done and the officials duty, nor is it possible to lay down any such rule. This aspect makes it clear that the concept of Section 197 does not immediately get attracted on institution of the complaint.... There cannot be any universal rule to determine whether there is a reasonable connection between the act done and the officials duty, nor is it possible to lay down any such rule. This aspect makes it clear that the concept of Section 197 does not immediately get attracted on institution of the complaint.... The offence of cheating under Section 420 or for that matter offences relatable to Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120B can by no stretch of imagination by their very nature be regarded as having been committed by any public servant while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duty. In such cases, official status only provides an opportunity for commission of the offence." 40. For all the aforesaid reasons, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction dated 20.3.2013 of the learned Sessions Judge, Udalguri in Sessions Case No. 209(D-U) 12. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Registry shall send back the LCR along with a copy of this judgment and order. Appeal Dismissed.