JUDGMENT : Rajendra Mahajan, J. In this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.01.2015 passed by the Special Judge Sehore under the Prevention of Corruption Act in an un-registered complaint Tridev Jan Kalyan Samiti through Member K.L. Bairagi v. U.K. Subuddhi and another. 2. The essential facts for the just and proper adjudication of the petition are given below:- (2.1) The petitioner has filed the criminal complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C for prosecution of the respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 167, 420, 120-B of the IPC and Section 13 of the Act, in the Court of Special Judge Sehore (for short 'the Court') on the grounds that the petitioner is a registered society under the Firms and Societies Act. The object of the society is to highlight and fight against the corrupt activities of public servants and the Government authorities through legal process. K.L. Bairagi is a member of the society and he is authorized to file this complaint against the respondents. From the year 2009 to 2011, respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 had been posted as Divisional Forest Officer and Sub-Divisional Forest Officer Sehore respectively. The Central Government has passed Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (for short the 'MANREGA'). For the implementation of provisions of the MANREGA, the Central Government has allotted large funds for various employment generated forest schemes to Forest Division Sehore. The respondents embezzled/misappropriated 4.5 crores of the schemes. The modus operandi of the respondents for the embezzlement of aforesaid money is mentioned in detail in the complaint. (2.2) The Court examined K.L. Bairagi, Girish Sharma, O.P. Khare and A.K. Pandey under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. and also called for relevant documents. (2.3) On 29.01.2015, the impugned order is passed by the Court whereby it has refused to register the complaint against the respondents on the ground that as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa [ (2013) 10 SCC 705 ], for registration of the private complaint under the provisions of the Act, prosecution-sanction under Section 19 (1) of the Act is a condition precedent. (2.4) It is also stated in the impugned order that the petitioner had been given more than 4 to 5 years' time by the Court for seeking the aforesaid prosecution-sanction from the concerned authorities, but it failed to secure the same. Under the circumstances, the complaint is dismissed for want of prosecution-sanction. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner has filed this petition contending that for the prosecution of a public servant under the provisions of the Act prosecution-sanction under Section 19 (1) is a condition precedent in view of the decision of the apex court as rendered in the case of Anil Kumar (Supra), but such is not requirement of law for filing sanction for the prosecution under Section 197(1) of the Cr.P.C. with the complaint for registration of it against a public servant for the offences punishable under the I.P.C. Therefore, the Court ought to have registered the complaint against the respondents for the offences of the IPC as alleged in it. Upon this premise, the Court has committed a grave error of law by not registering the complaint against the respondents for the offences punishable under the I.P.C. Therefore, the Court be ordered to register the complaint against the respondents for the relevant offences punishable under the IPC. 4. Vide order dated 27.03.2015, this Court has directed the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner to address this Court whether the prosecution-sanction under Section 197(1) is a condition precedent for registration of the complaint against the respondents for the alleged offences of the I.P.C. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondents had committed criminal misappropriation of public funds in the implementation of the various schemes under the MANREGA and the misappropriation of public money directly or indirectly is not connected with the official duties of the respondents. Hence, the prosecution-sanction under Section 197(1) is not sine qua non for the prosecution of the respondents much less a condition precedent for the registration of the complaint for the offences punishable under the I.P.C. Moreover, the respondents will have an opportunity to raise this legal objection after their appearance in the case. In support of the aforesaid arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the law laid down in the case of Prakash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab (AIR 2007 SC 1274.), regarding the requirement of prosecution-sanction. 6. In support of the aforesaid arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the law laid down in the case of Prakash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab (AIR 2007 SC 1274.), regarding the requirement of prosecution-sanction. 6. We have considered the submissions adduced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the complaint, the impugned order and material on record with utmost circumspection. Following are the points for consideration before us:- (i) Whether the prosecution-sanction under Section 197 (1) is required for the prosecution of the respondents for the alleged offences of the IPC? (ii) Whether the prosecution-sanction under Section 197 (1) is a condition precedent for the prosecution of the respondents in view of the fact-situation of the case? Point No. 1 7. In Amrik Singh v. State of Pepsu ( AIR 1955 SC 309 ), the facts of the case are that the accused/appellant was a Sub-divisional officer in the Public Works Department, Pepsu at the relevant time. He was in-charge of certain works. It was part of his duties to disburse the wages to the workmen employed in the works. It is found in the course of an enquiry that in the acquittance roll the accused entered a fictitious name of one Parma, and a sum of Rs. 51/- was shown as paid to him for his wages. Thereupon, the State of Pepsu filed charge sheet against the accused for criminal misappropriation of the aforesaid money. The trial Court framed the charges against him for the offences under Sections 409 (for criminal misappropriation of Rs. 51/-) and 465 (for forging the thumb impression of Parma) of the IPC, and after full trial of case it acquitted him of the aforesaid charges. Against this judgment of acquittal, the State of Pepsu filed an appeal in the High Court of Pepsu. The High Court having appreciated the evidence on record convicted the accused in the aforesaid sections. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the accused filed the SLP in the Supreme Court. It is argued before the Supreme Court that in the fact-situation of the case prosecution-sanction under Section 197(1) is required, but the same is not obtained. Hence, prosecution of the accused must fail on this ground alone without going into the merits of the case. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the accused filed the SLP in the Supreme Court. It is argued before the Supreme Court that in the fact-situation of the case prosecution-sanction under Section 197(1) is required, but the same is not obtained. Hence, prosecution of the accused must fail on this ground alone without going into the merits of the case. The Supreme Court after referring to the decisions of the Federal Court and the Privy Council and noticing the facts of the case has stated thus:- "Even when the charge is one of misappropriation by a public servant, whether sanction is required under Section 197 (1) will depend upon the facts of each case. 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." On the basis of the aforesaid observations, the Supreme Court has held that the offences of the accused complaint of cannot be separated from the discharge of his official duties. Hence, the prosecution-sanction under Section 197(1) is mandatory, and in the absence of such sanction the prosecution of the accused is not maintainable. On this very ground, the Supreme Court has set aside the conviction and the sentence as recorded by the High Court, acquitting the accused. 8. In the case in hand, the petitioner admits in the complaint that the respondents have misappropriated the public money while implementing the schemes in the course of their official duties. Hence, the acts of misappropriation as alleged against the respondents cannot be separated from their official duties. Thus, the prosecution-sanction under Section 197(1) is required in view of the law laid down in the case of Amrik Singh (Supra). Point No. 2 9. In Sankaran Moitra v. Sadhna Das and Another (2006) 2 SCC (Cri.) 358, the facts of the case are that the complainant has filed a criminal complaint for the prosecution of accused/police officers for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 109 and 120-B of the IPC, alleging that on 10.05.2011, they had beaten her husband to death. In Sankaran Moitra v. Sadhna Das and Another (2006) 2 SCC (Cri.) 358, the facts of the case are that the complainant has filed a criminal complaint for the prosecution of accused/police officers for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 109 and 120-B of the IPC, alleging that on 10.05.2011, they had beaten her husband to death. The Magistrate took cognizance of aforesaid offences against the accused-police officers who, in turn, challenged the cognizance in the High Court on the ground that the prosecution-sanction under 197 (1) is a condition precedent for the registration of the complaint against them. The High Court dismissed the petition of the accused-police officers holding that the prosecution-sanction under Section 197 (1) is not a condition precedent. Thereupon, the accused-police officers challenged the order of the High Court in the Supreme Court. In the case, the stand of accused-police officers was that on 10.05.2001, the date of incident, there was a general election to the Assembly of West Bengal. On that day, at about 14:10 hours, they got information of some disturbances at the polling station at CIT Office. Thereupon, they reached the spot and found violence between the supporters of the rival parties. In order to prevent the violence, they tried to separate them but the supporters of the parties started throwing brickbats and bombs indiscriminately against each other and the police force. Thereupon, they stepped into action and chased the unruly mob of the supporters and resorted to physical force. During the course, the complainant sustained serious injuries leading to his death. Since the offences as complained of by the complainant against them are occurred in the course of their official duties and are inextricable from the official duties, the prosecution-sanction under Section 197 (1) is a condition precedent for taking cognizance against them. In the aforesaid fact situation of the case, the majority view of the Supreme Court is that when the acts/offences complained of are not separable from the official duties of a public servant, then the prosecution-sanction under Section 197 is a condition precedent. Having held so, the Supreme Court has quashed the complaint for want of prosecution-sanction under 197 (1). 10. Having held so, the Supreme Court has quashed the complaint for want of prosecution-sanction under 197 (1). 10. In Om Prakash and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another ( 2012 12 SCC 72 ), the complainant filed a criminal complaint for the prosecution of accused-police officers for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 323, 34 and 120-B of the IPC, alleging that the accused police officers had murdered four persons in a stage managed fake encounter. In this case, the accused police officers challenged the cognizance taken against them without seeking prior prosecution-sanction under Section 197(1). The matter traveled to the Supreme Court. Having relied upon the reports of the CID of the State and National Human Rights Commission, which are to the effect that there is no evidence that the alleged encounter was a fake one, the Supreme Court has held that for the prosecution of accused-police officers prosecution-sanction under Section 197 (1) is a condition precedent in the fact-situation of the case, because there is a reasonable connection between the alleged offences and the official duties of the accused-police officers. Having held so, the Supreme Court quashed the complaint for want of prosecution sanction under Section 197(1). 11. In the light of the aforesaid rulings, we are of the view that in the instant case, the prosecution-sanction under Section 197 (1) is a condition precedent because the respondents misappropriated the public money as alleged by the petitioner in discharge of their official duties while implementing the schemes as approved by the Government concerned. In other words, there is a reasonable and inseparable connection between the offence of criminal misappropriation of money by the respondents and their official duties. 12. It is pertinent to mention here that in the case of Prakash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab (Supra), the Supreme Court has held that when the prosecution-sanction under Section 197 (1) is not required. The law laid down in this case is not applicable in the present case because facts of the cases are quite distinguishable and we have already held that the offences complained of against the respondents are inseparable from their official duties. 13. The law laid down in this case is not applicable in the present case because facts of the cases are quite distinguishable and we have already held that the offences complained of against the respondents are inseparable from their official duties. 13. In the light of above discussions, we find no infirmity in the impugned order and we are of the considered view that no case is made to direct the Court concerned to register the complaint against the respondents for the offences punishable under the IPC in the absence of sanction for the prosecution under 197 (1) of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Petition Dismissed.