necessary entries in the books of accounts and so also in case of accused Ramesh Chandra Satpathy whose duty was to record the fact of lifting of the stocks in the books of accounts. The basic element of the alleged offence here is the lifting of stocks, which as per the FIR, the accused lifted but utilized for his own benefit by selling it in blackmarket. So, if the argument of learned counsel for Vigilance is accepted, it would imply that while lifting of stocks was an official act misappropriation thereof was not and hence, sanction would not be necessary. This would entail segregating the act into two parts that is, the lifting part and the misappropriating part, which would be fallacious. Further, this would be entirely contrary to the requirement of Section 197 CrPC which speaks of acts being done in discharge of official duty. The same reasoning would apply for the alleged commission of the offence under Section 468 IPC because making entries in the relevant books is undoubtedly, an act done in discharge of official duty. Therefore, on the admitted facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the allegations are intrinsically related to the official duties of the accused persons and hence, prior sanction is a must to prosecute them.
