Bail Slip: The Appellant / 4-36 was directed to b-e released on bail by the order ;iil;';ii;.'E;;ii;GJ r s-bo-ziioi in crt'n'u'p't'to ' s27 or 2007 in crr'A No' 674 of 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY ,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWOTHOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER 7M 749 752 755 756 CRIMIN AL APPEAL Crl.Appeal No. 674 of 2O07 Between: Nos : 674 675 703 715 743 790 & 101I OF 2007 ( Crl.Appeal Under Section 374 (2\ of Cr-P'C' aggrieved by the order dated 11_06_2007 in cc No. t or zoog on the fiie of the court of the Special Judge Under the Prevention of Corruption Aci for Speedy Trial of Cases of Embezzlement of itnorrirniJ Amounts in Social Welfare Department' Etc ' at Criminal Courts Complex. NamPally, HYderabad ) Il V Satvanaravana Pratap, S/o' Late Samba Murthy' Fria'ir. iurr.uii, FJo. Trimulgherry, secunderabad lvlanager, State Bank ot ...APPELLANT/ A-36 AND State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by Public Prosecutor' High Court of A-P'' Hyderabad ...RESPODENTS Counsel for the Appellant: SRI' CH' DHANAMJAYA Counsel for the Respondent: THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR j i Bail Slip: The Appellant I A-24 was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated 15-06-2007 in Crl.A.M.P.No. 928 of 20O7 in Crl.A.No. 675 of 2O07 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 675 OF 2007 ( Crl.Appeal Under Sectron 37 Q) of Cr. P.C- aggrieved by the order dated 11-06-2007 in CC No. 1 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge Under the Prevention of Corruption Act for Speedy Trral of Cases of Embezzlement of Scholarship Amounts in Socral Welfare Department, Etc., at Crimirial Courts Complex, Nampally, , Hyderabad) Between: D. Swaroopa Rani, W/o D. Shankar Rao, Housewife, R/o Plot No. 131, Kamalapuri Colony, Phase-lll, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad ...APPELLANT AND The State of Andhra Pradesh,, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad. ...RESPODENT Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. K. L. B. KUMAR Counsel forthe Respondent: THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Bail Slip: The Appellant / A- 3 & 7 were directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated 15-06-2007 in Crl.A.M.P.No. 970 of 20O7 in Crl.A.No. 703 ot 2OO7 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 703 OF 2007 ( Crl.Appeal Under Section 374 (21 of Cr.P.C R/w. Sec. 382 aggrieved by the order dated 11-06-2007 in CC No- 1 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge Under the Prevention of Corruption Act for Speedy Trial of Cases of Embezzlement of Scholarship Amounts in Social Wetfare Department, Etc., at Criminal Courts Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad) Between: flatilal Laliji Praveen Chander, S/o Ratilal Laliji, Auditor in PAO R/o H.No.29- 1414173, Kakatiya Nagar, Ncredmet, R.R Disl.' ,G.lndrasena, S/o Late Somappa, Superintendent in PAO Rl/o Flat No.157, Teachers Colony, Tirumalgherry, Secunderabad. ,| 2 ...APPELLANTS/ Accused Nos. 3 & 7 AND The State of A.P.,, rep- by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P , Hyderabad. ...RESPODENT/ Complainanr Counsel for the Appellants: SRl. V. SURENDER RAO Counsel for the Respondent: THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 715 OF 2007 ( Crl.Appeal Under Section 374 (2) ot Cr.P.C aggrieved by the order dated 11-06-2007 in CC No. 1 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge Under the Prevention of Corruption Act for Speedy Trial of Cases of Embezzlement of Scholarship Amounts in Social Welfare Department, Etc., at Criminal Courts Complex, Nampally, , Hyderabad) Between: -1, Pamula Gangadharam,( A-42, Died), Banjara Hills, H.No. 8-2-603/4/1 13, Singadi Kunta, 2. Pamula Sasirekha,, W/o. Late Pamula No.1 0, Banjarahills, Hyderabad Gangadharam, R/o. Singadikunta 3. P- Arlohan Kumar, S/o. Late Pamula Gangadharam, R/o. Singadikunta No.10, Banjarahills, Hyderabad 4. P . Uday Kumar, S/o. Late Pamula Gangadharam, R/o. Singadikunta No.-1 0, Banjarahills, Hyderabad 5. P. Amardeep, S/o. Late Pamula Gangadharam, Rt/o. Singadikunta No.10, Banja rahills, Hyderabad ...APPELLANTS ( As per Court Order dated 11-07-2023 in l.A.No. 1 ot 2018 in Crl.A.No. 715 of 2007 L.R. brought on record as Appellant Nos. 2 to 5 ) AND The State of A.P.,, rep.by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ...RESPODENT Counsel for the Appellants: SRl. K. SURESH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: THE PUtsLIC PROSECUTOR I CRIMINAL APPEALN o'.7430F 2007 ( Crl.Appeal Under Section 374 (2) of Cr-P C aggrieved by the order dated 11-06-)007 in CC No. 1 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge Under the Prevention of Corruption Act for Speedy Triat of Cases of Embezzlement of Sctrotarsnip Amounts in Social Welfare Department' Etc ' at Criminal Courts Complex, NamPallY, , HYderabad) 1. Ch.Suryanarayana, (A10) (died) S/o Ch Rama' Rao' APAO RI/o NGOs Coionv, C oO5'sectirr-a, Vinasthalipuram, R R District' 2. Smt. Ch. Valli Kumar, W/o Late Suryanarayana 3. Smt. Ch. Lakshmi Kumari, Wio. Sri G Srinivasa Rao 4. Smt. Ch. Usha Kalyani Wio l- Srinivas ( All are Rl/o. C- 605, NGO's Colony, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad ) ( Since Respondent No- 1 died Respondenls Nos 2 to 4 are brought on ).Ioio. ,"J gLnted teave to continue this Crl Appeal No' 743 of 2007 vide bourt OrOer A"ated 6-4-2010 in Crl.A-M.P.No. 665 of 2010 in this Crl.Appeal) ...APPELLANTS Himafth Nasar, AND The State of A.P., rep- by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A'P'' Hyderabad ...RESPODENTS Counsel for the Appellants: Smt. C. VASUNDHARA REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent: THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO:744OF 2O07 Between: Uradi Santosh Kumar, S/o. Balaiah, DSWo, R/o' H-No. 3-6-231, Magdhum lvlargh, (Crl'AppealUnderSection3T4(2)ofCr.P.Caggrievedbytheorder.dated 11-06-i007 in CC No. '1 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge Under the Prevention of Corruption Act for Speedy Trial of Cases of Embezzlement of icholarship Amounts in Social welfare Department, Etc., at Criminal courts Complex, NamPallY, , HYderabad) Between: AND ...APPELLANT/ A. 5 The State, through Asst. Commissroner of Police,, CCS . DD., Hyderabad, rep-by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P , Hyderabad. ...RESPODENT Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. ENUGANTT SUDHANSHU RAO Counsel for the Respondent: THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 749 OF 2007 ( Crl.Appeal Under Section 37a (2) of Cr.P.C aggrieved by the order dated 11-06-2001 in CC No. 1 of 2OO3 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge Under the Prevention of Corruplion Act for Speedy Trial of Cases of Embezzlement of Scholarship Amounts in Social Welfare Department, Etc., at Criminal Courts Complex, Nampally, , Hyderabad) Between: 1. Avisetti Prasada Rao, (A-20), S/o Venkat Accounts Officer, Rl/o H.No. 9-4-1 16/67, Chowki, 2. Bhalla Penumarthi Seshagiri Rao, (A-22), S/o B. Narayana Rao, Retired Superintendent, R/o H.No. 31-530, Plot No. 120, lndira Nagar, M.D.Farm Road, 3. Krishna Kumar, (A-41), S/o Late Anandam, Retired Dy. Pay and Accounts Offricer, R/o H.No. 18-5-4612, Laldarvvaza, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT/ Accused Nos. 20,22, 41 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad, through Asst. Commissioner of Police, Cenkal Crime Section, Detective Department, Hyderabad. ...RESPODENT/ Complainant Counsel for the Appellants: SRl. a. NALIN KUMAR CounselJor. the Respondent: THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 752 OF 2007 Reddy, Retired Asst. Pay and Balreddy Nagar Colony, Tolic ( Crl.Appeal Under $ection 374 (2) of Cr.P.C aggrieved by the order dated 11-06-2007 in CC No. 1 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge Under the Pre\Fntion of Corruption Act for Speedy Trial of Caies of Embezzlement of Scholarfrip Amounts in Social Welfare Department, Etc., at Criminal Courts Complex, Nampally, , Hyderabad) Betwee n l/alyala Anjaiah, (46), S/o Late ltrl. tVlalla iah, Govt. Servant RJo H No.12-11-1366' Boudhanagar, Warasiguda, Secunderabad. ( Died per LR"s ) 1. Malayala Srikanth S/o. Aniaiah aged about 46 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee RJo 12'1i-1368, Boudha Nagar, Warasiguda, Secunderabad, Hyderabad. 2. ltAalyala lVlaruthi, W/o. Late tU. Anjaiah , aged about 71 yearc' Occ: House wife Rl/o. 12-11-1368 Boudha Nagar. Warasiguda, Secunderabad, Hyderabad 3. Gandani Gayatri, Wio. Gandanai Srinivas, Age. 49 years' Occ: Housewife, Rlo.'1 2-1 1 -1 368, Boudha Nagar, Warasiguda, Secunderabad, Hyderabad. 4. trlalyala Sridhar, S/o. trrl. Anlaiah , aged about 43 years, Occ: Business, F/o. 12-i1-1368, Boudha Nagar, Warasiguda, Secunderabad , Hyderabad' As per the Court Order dated 18-08-2023 inl.A. No. 1 I 2023 in Cd.A.No. 752 of 2007 L.R. Brought on record. ) ...APPELLANTS AND The State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court ., Hyderabad, ...RESPODENT Counsel for the Appellants: SRl. P. VAMSHEEDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 755 OF 2OO7 ( Crl.Appeal Under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C aggrieved by the order dated 11-06-2007 in CC No. 1 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge Under the Prevention of Corruption Act for Speedy Trial of Cases of Embez-zlement of Scholarship Amounts in Social Welfare Department, Etc., at Criminal Courts Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad) Between: Kadimi Venkateswara Rao,, S/o Late K.[/araiah, Superintendent in PAO Office R/o B-93, Madhura Nagar, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT/ Accused No. 4 AND The State of A-P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court -, Hyderabad. t ..RESP.DENT ) Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. T. PRADYUMNA KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: iHE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO:756 OF 2OO7 ( Crl.Appeal Under Section 37a Q) of Cr.P.C aggrieved by the order dated 11-06-2007 in CC No. 1 oI 2003 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge Under the Prevention of Corruplion Act for Speedy Trial of Cases of Embezzlement of Scholarship Amounts in Social lVelfare Department, Etc., at Criminal Courts Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad) Between: B.Sudhakar ( died ) (A-35), S/o tVaruthi Rao, Govt Servant R:/o 89-C, Vengalrao Nagtar;Xrderabd, B. Saritha D/o. B. Sudhakar age , 35 years Occ: House Hold No. 44-14fi , Road No. 6, Srinivasapuram, Gurramguda, 5015010 ( As per Court Order dated 18rca12}23 in l.A. No. 2 of 2023 in Crl.A.No. 756 ot 2OOl L.R. Brought on Record.) ...APPELLANT/ Accused 35 ANO The State of A,P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. H. SUDHAKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 790 OF 2OO7 ( Crl.Appeal Under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C aggrieved by the order dated 1146-2007 in CC No. 1 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge Under the Prevention of Corruption Act for Speedy Trial of Cases of Embezzlement of Scholarship Amounts in Social Welfare Department, Etc., at Criminal Courts Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad) Between: R.Mothya Naik,, S/o R.Keshya Naik, Warden in Social Welfare Department R/o Flat No.315, Sanali Heavens Apartments, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. ...APPLLANT/ Accused No. 1 AND The StaF of A.P-,, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court ., Hyderabad. ...RESPODENT Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. SREENIVASA RAO RAVULAPATI Counsel for the Respondent: THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Bail Slip: The Appellant / A-2 was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated 15-06-2007 in Crl.A.M-P.No . 2369 of 2OO7 in Crl.A.No. 1019 of 2007 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 10't9 OF 2OOl ( Crl.Appeal Under Section 378 ( ) of Cr.P.C aggrieved by the order dated 11-06'200l in CC No. 1 of 2O03 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge Under the Prevention of Corruption Act for Speedy Trial of Cases of Embezzlement of Scholarship Amounts in Social Welfare Department, Etc., at Criminal Courts Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad) Between: D,Shankar Rao, S/o Hyderabad. AND Ra.jaiah, Rr/o. Plot No.131 ,Phase -lll, Kamalapuri Colony, ...APPELLANT/ Accused The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by the Public Prosecutor, High Court , Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: SRI CH. DHANAMJAYA Counsel for the Respondent: THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court delivered the following: Common Judgment I a THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.674, 675, 7O3, 7 L5, 743.744.749. 752,755,756, 790 & 1019 0F 2007 COMMON JUDGMENT: 1. Criminat Appeal No.674 of 2OO7 is frled by A36, Crl.A.No.675 of 2OO7 is frled by A24, Crl.A.No.7O3 of 2OO7 is filed by A3 & A7; Crl.A.No.7lS of 2OO7 is fi-Ied by A42, Cr1.A.No.743 of 2OO7 is filed by A10, Crl.A.No.744 of 2OO7 is frled by ,{5, Crl.A.No.749 of 2OO7 is filed by A2O, A22 & A41, Cr1.A.No.752 of 2OO7 is filed by A6, Crl.A.No.755 of 2OO7 is frled by A4, Crl.A.No.756 of 2OO7 is filed by A35, Crl.A.No.79O of 2007 is filed by A1 and Crl.A.No.lO19 of 2OO7 is Iiled by A2, questioning their conviction in CC.No. 1 of 2003, dated LI.06.2007 recorded by the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act for Speedy Tria,l of Cases of Embezzlement of Scholarship amounts in Social Welfare Department, Etc. at Criminal Courts Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad. Accused Nos.A3, A4, A2O, A22, A34, A35, ^436, A4l & A42 for the offences punishable under Sections 109 r/w 4O9, lO9 r/w 419, IO9 rlw 42O, lO9 rlw 467,109 r/w 468, IO9 r/w 471, lPC, A24 is convicted and sentenced under Sections lO9 r/w 4O9, 109 r/w 419, 109 r/w 42O, 109 r/w 467, lO9 r/w 468, 1O9 r/w 2 471 and Section 1O9 r/w 2Ol of IpC and AS, ,46, A7 & A10 were convicted and sentenced under Sections lO9 r/w 419, lO9 rlw 42O, IO9 r/w 467,IO9 r/w 468, 1O9 r/w 47t lpC; convicting and sentencing Accused No. I for the offences punishable under Sections 419,42O,467,46g,4O9,42 I of the Indian penal Code and A2 is convicted and sentenced ulder Sections 4Og, 4lg, 42O, 467,468 and 471 IPC. 2. Since all the appeals are arising out of common judgment in CC No. 1 of 20O3, all these appeals are being heard together and disposed by way of this Common Judgment. 3. The Centra,l Crime Station, Detective Department, Hyderabad investigated into the scholarship scarn case regarding pre-metric and post-metric scholarships. Three cases in a-11 were filed. Two cases pertaining to post_metric scholarships (C.C.No.1 of 2OO3 and CC No.3 of 2003) and one case pertaining to pre-metric scholarship (CC No.2 of 2OO3). All the three cases were tried by the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act for Speedy Tria-l of Cases of Embezzlemen t of Scholarship Amounts in Social Welfare 3 Department, etc. at Criminal Courts Complex, Red Hills,Nampally, Hyderabad 4. The case is that the accused A1 to A43 in CC No.1 of 2003 herein are from the office of the Social Welfare' Department, Pay and Accounts Department, Nationalized Banks and also private persons, who are kith and kin of the accused. All of them have conspired to cheat the Government. Pursuant to the alleged conspiracy, A.1 and A2 have floated bogus colleges and claimed scholarships in the names of those colleges. A1 and A,2 prepared forged and fabricated post-metric scholarships, bills, which is Form 103. The said Form 103 which are scholarships bills were prepzrred in the name of bogus colleges by preparing sanction proceedings and forging the signatures of District Social Welfare Ofhcers (DSWOs), District Backward Classes Welfare Ofhcers (DBCWOs), District Tribal Welfare Officers (DTWOs) and also forging the list of SC, ST and BC communities. The signatures of hctitious principals were forged on the bills. A2 also forged the bills and signatures of bogus colleges by preparing post-metric scholarship bills in 4 Form 103. Both A1 and A2 opened bank accounts in the name of 25 fictitious colleges. After having produced the bills in the Pay ald Accounts Ofhce and after processing, cheques were taken and deposited into Bank accounts and money was withdrawn. The tota_l loss to the Government was Rs.26,38,46 .476/-. 5. The learned Special Judge mainly relied on the evidence of witnesses who stated about the non-existent colleges and also opening of accounts in Andhra Bank and other banks. 6. Learned Special judge also piaced reliance on the bank transactions whereby the cheques were deposited and amounts were withdrawn. Further, the writings ald signatures of the accused which were identified formed basis for conviction. Out of 43 accused, A1, A2 worked in Social Welfare Department, ,{3 and 44 were Auditors in Deputy pay ald Accounts Office, A5 worked as Assistant Social Welfare Officer (ASWO), 4,6 worked as Assistart Backward Classes Wellare Officer (ABCWO), A7 worked as Superintendent in Deputy Pay and Accounts Oflice, A1O worked as Assistant pay 5 arrd Accounts Offrcer in Deputy Pay and Accounts Ofhce, A2O worked as Assistant Pay and Accounts Ofhcer in Deput5r Pay and Accounts Ofhce, A22 worked as Superintendent in Deputy Pay and Accounts Offrce, A24 is the wife of A2, A34 and A35 worked as Superintendents 1n Deputy Pay and Accounts Office, A36 worked as Accountant in State Bank of Patiala, R.P.Road branch. A4l worked as Deputy Pay and Accounts Officer and A42 worked as District Tribal Welfare Officer (TDWO), Hyderabad. 7. Acquitted accused are A8-District Tribal Welfare Ofllcer, A,9- District Triba-l Welfare Officer, A11-Junior Assistant in Tribal Welfare Oflice, A12-Welder, A13 (wife of Al2l, Al4- Inspector of Branches, Andhra Bank, Ai5-Branch Manager, Andhra Bank, A16-Business man, A17-Deputy Director, Social Welfare Department, Al8-Branch Manager, Andhra Bank, Al9-Branch Manager, SBH, A2 1-retired PAO, A23-wife of A1, A25-son of A2, A3O-Auditor (Computer operator) in DeputSr PAO office, A,31-Assistant Auditor in PAO, A37-Retired Deput5r 6 PAO, A38-Retired Superintendent, pAO, A4O, A43. Proceedings against A26 to A29 were quashed by High Court. 8. Totally 122 charges were framed for the offences under Sections 419, 42O, 4O9,467,468, 47 I and 1O9 of IpC against the accused. The charges were framed on the basis of the bills produced in Pay & Accounts Ofhce, opening of accounts in banks, withdrawal of amounts from the Bank and fabrication of sanction proceedings ald hled along with Form 103 bills, which were zrlso fabricated. 9 . As already stated, the cnrx of the allegation is that the scholarships meant for SC, ST, BC students were swindled by submitting fake scholarship application forms in the names of hctitious and bogus educational insLitutions with fictitious student narnes as belonging to SC, ST and BC communities, sanction proceedings of schoiarships, stamp receipts, bills etc., were aII fabricated. SANCTION U lS.L97 Cr.P.C: 7 10. Learned Special Judge has framed point No.45 to assert whether tJre prosecution is bad in respect of accused for want of sanction orders under Section 797 of Cr.P.C. 11. Answering the said point, learned Special Judge has found that though sanction orders were obtained from the competent authorities against A1 to A10, A20 to A22, A3O, A31, A34, A35, A37, A38, A41 and A43, the prosecution failed to bring on record the said sanction orders. 12. However, the learned Special Judge found that the said sanction orders were not necessary in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Singh Badal and another v. State of Punjab and othersr, wherein it was held as follows: "Tle offence of cheating under section 420 or for that matter offences relatable to sections 467, 468, 471 and 12O-B can bg no stretch of imaaination bg their uery nah)re be regarded as hauing been committed b1l ary1 public seruant uthile acting or purporting to act tn discharge of official dutu. In such case, offtcial status onlg prouides an opportunitg for commi.ssion of the offence." ' lzoou 1 r scc I 8 13. Having extracted the said paragraph, learned Special Judge found that there is no necessit5r for sanction to be obtained under Section 197 of Cr.p.C to prosecute the ofhcia,ls and it cannot be said that prosecution is bad for want of sanction order. 14. Firstly, there is no explanation as to why the prosecution tailed to bring on record the sanction orders which were obtained against the accused. Sanction against public servant is arr act necessitated under Section .1,9T of Cr.p.C to protect officers from lalse criminal prosecutions. Learned Special Judge has committed an error in finding that there was no necessit5r reducing sanctit5r of Section 197 of Cr.p.C for obtaining salction orders and its object redundant. Section I97 of Cr.P.C or similar provision under the prevention of Corn:ption Act were introduced by the legislature to prevent and protect public servants from being criminally prosecuted, which acts amounted to criminal offences, during discharge of their official duties. 9 15. Recently, the Honble Supreme Court in the case of A.Srinivasulu v. State rep. by the Inspector of Police2 clarifred that the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prakash Singh Badal's case (supra), held as under: tso. But the above contention in our opinion is far-fetched. The observations contained in paragraph 50 of the decision in Parkash Singh Badal (supra) are too general in nature and cannot be regarded as the ratio flowing out of the said case. If by their very nature, the offences under sections 42O,468, 471 arrd 12OB cannot be regarded as having been committed by a public servant while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of ofhcia-l du ty, the same logic would apply witJ. much more vigour in the case of offences under the PC Act. Section 197 of the Code does not carve out any group of offences that will fall outside its purview. Therefore, the observations contained in para 5O of the decision in Parkash Singh Badal cannot be taken as carving out an exception judiciaJly, to a statutory prescription. In fact, Parkas h Singh Badalcitcs with approval the other decisions (authored by the very same learned Judge) where this Court made a distinction between all act, though in excess of the duty, was reasonably connected with the discharge of ofhcial duty and an act which was merely a cloak for doing the objectionable act. Interestingly, the proposiLion laid down in Rakesh Kumar Mishra (supra) was distinguished in paragraph 49 of the decision in Parkash Singh Badal, before the Court made the observations in paragraph 5O extracted above. 51. No public servant is appointed with a mandate or authority to commit an offence. Therefore, if the observations contained in paragraph 50 of the decision in Parkash Singh Badal are applied, any act which constitutes an offence under any statute will go out of ttre purview of an act in the discharge of official duty. The requirement of a previous sanction will thus be rendered redundalt by such an interpretation." '? 2023 SCC Online SC 900 10 16. The Hon'bie Supreme Court observed that the requirement of previous sanction would be rendered redundant if it is interpreted that every act of which a public servant is alleged to have committed would be without protection, which the legislature thought it fit to protect public servants who were discharging their duties, which a.re reasonably connected to their official functions. 17. The prosecution has committed an error in not bringing the salction orders on record. The application or non- application of rnind in granting sanction and whether the acts alleged in the presen t case were connected with their official duties or not would have been part of the record. Even before discussing the evidence, the learned Special Judge concludes that the accused/public servants have indulged in the alleged acts of cheating, criminal misappropriation and forgery and sanction to criminally prosecute public servants was not necessary. 18. None of the official witnesses have stated that the bills which were brought ort record were fake and fabricated bills or 11 that the ofhcia,ls have fraudulently committed such acts of producing fabricated bills, having knowledge about ttre a-lleged falsity of the bills. The witnesses from Backward Class Welfare Department, Social Welfare Department, Tribal Welfare Department and Pay & Accounts Ofhce, stated that no infirmity was detected in any of the bills and procedure adopted while passing bills. 19. The admissibility of the evidence produced by the prosecution and documents marked would be discussed in the subsequent paragraphs, which has a bearing on the application of mind by the Competent Authority granting sanction to prosecute public servants. 20. Even prior to discussing the evidence in the present case, it is necessar5r that the law laid down by tJle Hon'ble Supreme Court for appreciating evidence has to be gone into. A reading of the evidence of witnesses and findings of the learned Special Judge, the basics of admissibility of evidence in criminal trial have been utterly disregarded and