JUDGMENT : Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . I.A. No.2775 of 2025 Heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not press the instant interlocutory application. Accordingly, this interlocutory application stands rejected as not pressed. Cr.M.P. No.3476 of 2023 This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the order taking cognizance dated 14.08.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj of the offences punishable under Sections 467 , 468, 471, 420, 409, 120B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . 2. It is pertinent to mention here that consequent upon taking the cognizance, the petitioner has filed a petition for discharge which has been rejected by a reasoned order dated 16.01.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj but the said order has not been challenged. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner, in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons being a public servant, has misappropriated the Service Records of the co-accused Dilip Kumar Pandey; while conducting the enquiry with regard to the selection, appointment and posting of Dilip Kumar Pandey as an Assistant in Yamuna Das Chaudhary Girl’s High School. The petitioner took away the Service Records of the co-accused Dilip Kumar Pandey. The complicity of the petitioner in the said offence was found to be true, during the course of the investigation of the case and after finding the involvement of the petitioner in criminal conspiracy, in committing the said offence, police submitted charge-sheet. On the basis of the charge-sheet, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence. 4. It is apparent from the copy of the order dated 16.01.2025 which has been filed in I.A. No.2775 of 2025 that the petitioner in his petition filed with the prayer to discharge him from the case, did not take the plea that no sanction for his prosecution was obtained by the prosecution for the reasons best known to the petitioner and the trial court considering the grounds taken in the said petition filed with a prayer for discharge, rejected the said petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations against the petitioner are false and charge-sheet has been filed on the basis of concocted facts. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations against the petitioner are false and charge-sheet has been filed on the basis of concocted facts. It is next submitted that the official records cannot be handed over to any person without obtaining a receiving or acknowledgment from the person, who is interested in official records. It is further submitted that without taking sanction against the petitioner, the learned court below has taken cognizance of the offence in a mechanical manner. 6. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of D. Devaraja vs. Owais Sabeer Hussain passed in Criminal Appeal No.458 of 2020 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1882 of 2018 dated 18.06.2020, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in paragraph-80 of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India considering the facts of that case has observed that, in that case, the High Court after having held that the sanction was a legal requirement which empowers the Court to take Cognizance, therefore, the High Court ought to have exercised its power to quash the complaint. Hence, it is submitted that in this case as the petitioner was allegedly entrusted with the Service Records of Dilip Kumar Pandey while discharging his official duty, the alleged misappropriation of the same also comes under the official duty. It is, therefore submitted that the order taking cognizance without obtaining the sanction for prosecution of the petitioner is bad in law, hence, the same be quashed and set aside. It is lastly submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P. Learned counsel appearing for the State relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Devinder Singh & Another vs. State of Punjab through CBI reported in ( 2016) 12 SCC 87 and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has summarized the principles regarding sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. in paragraph-39 to 39.9 of the said judgment; which reads as under:- “ 39 . The principles emerging from the aforesaid decisions are summarised hereunder: 39.1 . The principles emerging from the aforesaid decisions are summarised hereunder: 39.1 . Protection of sanction is an assurance to an honest and sincere officer to perform his duty honestly and to the best of his ability to further public duty. However, authority cannot be camouflaged to commit crime. 39.2 . Once act or omission has been found to have been committed by public servant in discharging his duty it must be given liberal and wide construction so far its official nature is concerned. Public servant is not entitled to indulge in criminal activities. To that extent Section 197 CrPC has to be construed narrowly and in a restricted manner. 39.3 . Even in facts of a case when public servant has exceeded in his duty, if there is reasonable connection it will not deprive him of protection under Section 197 CrPC. There cannot be a universal rule to determine whether there is reasonable nexus between the act done and official duty nor is it possible to lay down such rule. 39.4 . In case the assault made is intrinsically connected with or related to performance of official duties, sanction would be necessary under Section 197 CrPC, but such relation to duty should not be pretended or fanciful claim. The offence must be directly and reasonably connected with official duty to require sanction. It is no part of official duty to commit offence. In case offence was incomplete without proving, the official act, ordinarily the provisions of Section 197 CrPC would apply. 39.5 . In case sanction is necessary, it has to be decided by competent authority and sanction has to be issued on the basis of sound objective assessment. The court is not to be a sanctioning authority. 39.6 . Ordinarily, question of sanction should be dealt with at the stage of taking cognizance, but if the cognizance is taken erroneously and the same comes to the notice of court at a later stage, finding to that effect is permissible and such a plea can be taken first time before the appellate court. It may arise at inception itself. There is no requirement that the accused must wait till charges are framed. 39.7 . Question of sanction can be raised at the time of framing of charge and it can be decided prima facie on the basis of accusation. It may arise at inception itself. There is no requirement that the accused must wait till charges are framed. 39.7 . Question of sanction can be raised at the time of framing of charge and it can be decided prima facie on the basis of accusation. It is open to decide it afresh in light of evidence adduced after conclusion of trial or at other appropriate stage. 39.8 . Question of sanction may arise at any stage of proceedings. On a police or judicial inquiry or in course of evidence during trial. Whether sanction is necessary or not may have to be determined from stage to stage and material brought on record depending upon facts of each case. Question of sanction can be considered at any stage of the proceedings. Necessity for sanction may reveal itself in the course of the progress of the case and it would be open to the accused to place material during the course of trial for showing what his duty was. The accused has the right to lead evidence in support of his case on merits. 39.9 . In some cases it may not be possible to decide the question effectively and finally without giving opportunity to the defence to adduce evidence. Question of good faith or bad faith may be decided on conclusion of trial.” (Emphasis supplied) and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has categorically held that protection of sanction is an assurance to an honest and sincere officer to perform his duty honestly and to the best of his ability to further public duty. However, authority cannot be camouflaged to commit crime. 8. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the State that though discharging the duty is to be given a liberal and wide construction so far as its official nature is concerned; but public servant is not entitled to indulge in criminal activities and to that extent Section 197 of Cr.P.C. has to be construed narrowly and in a restricted manner and that cannot be a universal rule to determine whether there is reasonable nexus between the act done and the official duty nor is it possible to lay down such rule. 9. 9. It is further submitted that the question of sanction can be raised at the time of framing of charge but for the reasons best known to the petitioner, the petitioner has not taken the plea that sanction has not been accorded for his prosecution in his petition for discharge which has already been rejected by the court concerned and which rejection order has not been challenged. It is next submitted that the question of impact of bad faith may be decided at the conclusion of the trial. 10. Learned counsel for the State further relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Devinder Singh & Another vs. State of Punjab through CBI (supra) paragraph-23 of which reads as under:- “23. In P.K. Pradhan v. State of Sikkim [P.K. Pradhan v. State of Sikkim, (2001) 6 SCC 704 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1234] this Court considered the provisions contained in Section 197 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure whether an offence committed “while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty” and laid down that the test to determine the aforesaid is that the act complained of must be an offence and must be done in discharge of official duty. In any view of the matter there must be a reasonable connection between the act and the official duty. It does not matter that the act exceeds what is strictly necessary for the discharge of the official duty, since that question would arise only later when the trial proceeds. However, no sanction is required where there is no such connection and the official status furnishes only the occasion or opportunity for the acts. The claim of the accused that the act was done reasonably and not in pretended course of his official duty can be examined during the trial by giving an opportunity to the defence to prove it. In such cases, the question of sanction should be left open to be decided after conclusion of the trial. The claim of the accused that the act was done reasonably and not in pretended course of his official duty can be examined during the trial by giving an opportunity to the defence to prove it. In such cases, the question of sanction should be left open to be decided after conclusion of the trial. The decision in Abdul Wahab Ansari [Abdul Wahab Ansari v. State of Bihar, (2000) 8 SCC 500 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 18] has also been taken into consideration by this Court.” (Emphasis supplied) and submits that in the case of P. K. Pradhan vs. State of Sikkim represented by the Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2001) 6 SCC 704, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has categorically held that when the official status of an accused furnishes only the occasion or opportunity for the acts, the claim of the accused that the act was done reasonably and not in pretended course of his official duty, can be examined during the trial by giving an opportunity to the defence to prove it. 11. It is further submitted that misappropriation of the Service Records of the co-accused person, by no stretch of imagination can be termed as the act having any reasonable connection of the official duty of the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 12. 11. It is further submitted that misappropriation of the Service Records of the co-accused person, by no stretch of imagination can be termed as the act having any reasonable connection of the official duty of the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 12. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the contention of the petitioner that the allegations against him are true or that there was no occasion for him to commit the offence, is a defence which the petitioner can take at the appropriate stage during the trial but certainly this Court cannot conduct a mini trial in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to return a finding regarding the innocence of the petitioner; as the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held in the case of Uttar Pradesh & Another vs. Akhil Sharda & Others reported in 2022 LiveLaw SC 594 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the relevant portion of which reads as under :- “Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High court has set aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC, it appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under Section 482 CrPC. As observed and held by this court in a catena of decisions, no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC, jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considering. (Emphasis supplied) 13. So far as the contention of the petitioner regarding cognizance against him being bad in law for want of sanction for prosecution is concerned, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Devinder Singh & Another vs. State of Punjab through CBI (supra); the authority cannot be camouflaged to commit a crime. So far as the contention of the petitioner regarding cognizance against him being bad in law for want of sanction for prosecution is concerned, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Devinder Singh & Another vs. State of Punjab through CBI (supra); the authority cannot be camouflaged to commit a crime. Certainly misappropriation of a file is a crime. The entrustment of Service Records of Dilip Kumar Pandey furnishes only the occasion or the opportunity for the petitioner to get a dominion over the Service Records of Dilip Kumar Pandey. The claim of the petitioner that such act of misappropriation was done reasonably in connection of the course of his official duty and not in pretended course of official duty; can be examined during the trial by giving an opportunity to him to prove it. 14. As has rightly been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the State that for the reasons best known to the petitioner; in his discharge petition which has already been rejected by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj vide the order dated 16.01.2025 in G.R. No.819 of 2014, the petitioner has not taken the plea for his discharge on the ground that no sanction for his prosecution has been accorded. The said order of rejection of the discharge petition has not been challenged. 15. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the order taking cognizance dated 14.08.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj warrants interference of this Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 16. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed.