Judgment :- 1. This is a petition by the first accused in C.C.1046 of 1964 to revise the order of the Sub-Magistrate, Tirur rejecting the preliminary objection raised by him that he being the president of the Vallikunnu Panchayat the charge laid against him under S.323 and 324 I.P.C. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Tirurangadi cannot be taken cognisance of without the requisite sanction of the Government as provided in S.122 of the Kerala Panchayats Act. S.122 is in the following terms: "(1) When the president, executive authority or any member is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction of Government. The allegation in the complaint is that on 29-4-1964 when in the course of the panchayat meeting the complainant raised a point of order, the petitioner and the second accused in the case assaulted him. Learned Magistrate held that the assault could never be said to have been caused in the discharge of his duties as the president of the panchayat and ordered that no sanction was necessary and that the case would proceed. 2. In order that the section might apply it must be held that the act done bears such a relation to the official duties of the person concerned that he can lay a reasonable and not merely a pretended or fanciful claim that the act complained of was done by him in the course of the performance of his official duties. S.122 cannot be invoked merely because it is his official status which furnished him an occasion or the opportunity for the commission of the offence complained of. The question of necessity of sanction has to be decided on the materials available on record at the time cognizance is taken. Even though the complaint or the charge sheet may not disclose that the act constituting the offence was done or purported to be done in the discharge of official duty, facts subsequently coming to light in the course of the enquiry when the prosecution evidence is adduced may establish the necessity for sanction. As was held in Matajog Dobey & others v. Bhari (A.I.R.1956 S.C. 44) whether sanction is necessary or not may have to be determined from stage to stage. As was held in Matajog Dobey & others v. Bhari (A.I.R.1956 S.C. 44) whether sanction is necessary or not may have to be determined from stage to stage. The mere fact that the petitioner is the Panchayat President would not be itself be sufficient to bring the case within the inhibition of S.122. The revision petition is dismissed. Dismissed.