JUDGMENT V.D. Bhargava, J. - This is an application u/s 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the applicant who is a legal practitioner practising in Kanpur. 2. The applicant was appointed as commissioner on the 24th November 1954 by the Civil and Sessions Judge. Kanpur in Misc. case No. 9/75 of 1954 arising out of suit No. 21 of 1352. The applicant, in compliance with the order of the Civil and Sessions Judge, on the 25th November 1954 went to execute the commission and proceeded to the house in dispute. He was accompanied by the pairokars of the parties as well as of the auction purchaser. When he reached the house, Smt. Dayawanti and other lady occupants of the house agreed to vacate it after the order of the court had been explained to them. 3. While the Petitioner was engaged in executing the commission several persons of the locality collected there and they started obstructing the applicant in execution of the commission. They rushed towards the applicant to assault him. He, in fear of his life, ran to the police outpost which was nearby. At about 9 a. m. the applicant went to lodge a report at the Kotwali police station and he narrated the whole incident to the station office there. His report was recorded by the police. While the applicant was still present at the police Station, one of the pairokars who had accompanied the applicant came to the police station, and he was profusely bleeding. He also narrated the facts which were also recorded. The applicant, while he was on his way, met a sub-inspector accompanied by police constable who stopped him and told him that he was wanted by he Deputy Superintendent of Police. He went back to the Kotwali and there he met the Deputy Superintendent of Police who questioned him and asked him to show the authority of commission. The authority was shown to him. Thereupon he told the applicant that he was under arrest. The Petitioner was surprised at this attitude of the Deputy Superintendent of Police and he wanted to know as to what offence he had committed. The applicant was informed that a report was being recorded and after it was recorded it would be known whether the offence that he had committed was a bailable or non-bailable offence. The Petitioner was surprised at this attitude of the Deputy Superintendent of Police and he wanted to know as to what offence he had committed. The applicant was informed that a report was being recorded and after it was recorded it would be known whether the offence that he had committed was a bailable or non-bailable offence. If the report showed that it was a non-bailable offence he would be sent to jail. Thereafter the Deputy Superintendent of Police left the Kotwali. 4. The applicant noticed that the report which was being lodged was by one of the lady members of the house and the report was being dictated by Sri Radha Krishna Khanna and Sri Vishwanath, local lawyers of Kanpur. Thereafter, the Senior Superintendent of Police also arrived at the Kotwali, and the applicant reported the whole story to him, and it was on the order of the Senior Superintendent of Police that the applicant was released on executing a personal bond of Rs. 1,000/- and a surety in like amount. It is curious, that in spite of this order the station officer, Kotwali did not release him and informed the applicant that he would consider the question of his release after he had returned from the court of session. It was at the intervention of Sri Suraj Prasad Avasthi, M.L.A. and Sri Hamid Khan, M.L.A. that he was released at 11 a.m. The applicant went straight to the court and narrated the whole story there again. He was asked to submit a report in writing, which he did. Thereupon proceedings for contempt of court were started by the learned Sessions Judge. A challan was submitted by the Kotwali police station against the applicant and seven others Under Sections 147, 452, 323 and 392, I.P.C. Later on, that charge sheet was amended and Sections 109 and 34, were also added. 5. This action, it is alleged, caused great consternation among the lawyers and a resolution of the Bar Association was passed and the matter was also taken to the Lawyers' Conference. There also" a resolution was passed. I need not give further details. 5. This action, it is alleged, caused great consternation among the lawyers and a resolution of the Bar Association was passed and the matter was also taken to the Lawyers' Conference. There also" a resolution was passed. I need not give further details. But the defence case inter alia at the present moment is that he was a public officer, having been appointed commissioner by the court to execute a commission and, therefore, u/s 197-A, Code of Criminal Procedure no proceedings should have been taken against him without sanction of the court who had appointed him, and on this ground it is asked by the applicant that since there was no sanction the proceedings against him may be quashed. This case came up earlier before, me on the 13th January 1956 and I directed the applicant to move this application before the Magistrate before whom the case was pending. A certified copy of the order passed by the Magistrate on the 6th March, 1956 is before me. In that order he has held that there was, as a fact, no sanction, and further that the applicant was duly appointed as commissioner. But on discussion of certain authorities he has come to the conclusion that in this case no sanction was necessary. 6. The question for determination is whether sanction was necessary or not and whether the commissioner was acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his function as a commissioner. If it was so, then there can be no doubt that sanction would be necessary. It is clear that the Petitioner was appointed commissioner and he had gone to the house in dispute only to execute the commission. During the execution of his commission, even if it be supposed that he had exceeded his rights, it will still be called execution of the commission. He had gone there for no other purpose. 7. Learned Counsel for the applicant has relied on Matajog Dobey Vs. H.C. Bhari, AIR 1956 SC 44 . That case is analogous to the case before me. In that case four officers and some constables went to raid a house in the Armenian Street Calcutta. The father of the person, whose house was being searched came to that place and found that they had forcibly entered the house and had broken the locks. That case is analogous to the case before me. In that case four officers and some constables went to raid a house in the Armenian Street Calcutta. The father of the person, whose house was being searched came to that place and found that they had forcibly entered the house and had broken the locks. He protested against the action of the police and said that they could not search without making a proper list and that their action was illegal. Thereupon, it was alleged, these police officers took him down, assaulted him mercilessly, kicked him and dragged him down stairs and put him in a police van. He was brought to the Burra Bazar police station and was again assaulted and sent to the hospital. On return from the hospital, he was again detained at the police station till midnight. On this set of facts the Calcutta High Court quashed the proceeding on the ground that there was no sanction and the police officers who were accused were acting in the discharge of their duties. A beach of the Calcutta High Court was of opinion that: From the nature of the allegations therefore against the Petitioner, it is abundantly clear that there was something in the acts alleged against him which attached them to his official character of the Petitioner, that is;, which attached them to his official character in holding the search. 8. This decision was upheld by their Lordships of the Supreme Court and they held: The offence alleged to have been committed must have something to do, or must be related in some manner, with the discharge of official duty. No question of sanction can arise u/s 197, unless the act complained of is an offence: the only point to determine is whether it was committed in the discharge of official duty. There must be a reasonable connection between the act and the official duty. It does not matter even if the act exceeds what is strictly necessary for the discharge of the duty, as this question will arises only at a later stage when the trial proceeds on the merits. 9. In these circumstances, their Lordships held: It is fairly clear that the assault and use of criminal force etc. alleged against the accused are definitely related to the performance of their official duties. 9. In these circumstances, their Lordships held: It is fairly clear that the assault and use of criminal force etc. alleged against the accused are definitely related to the performance of their official duties. And, therefore, their Lordships held that it was an obvious case for sanction. The case before me is a much stronger case. In that case it may have been said that the assault committed later in the police station was not at all necessary and may not have been done in the discharge of official duty. But simply because it was related to that incident it was held that it required sanction. In this case it is clear that what the applicant did was only to protect himself and he did at the time when he was discharging his official duties; and sanction was absolutely necessary. 10. Under these circumstances, I think it is a fit case where the proceedings should be quashed, and I hereby quash them.