JUDGMENT : Das, J. - This is an appeal against the order of the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Kalahandi, acquitting the Respondent of an offence u/s 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The accused Respondent is a Block Development Officer in charge of Maniguda Block in the district of Kalahandi. On 27-12-1964 the Motor Vehicles Inspector found the accused driving a motor jeep without a driving licence. He accordingly prosecuted him u/s 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. At the trial, the plea of the accused was one of a denial But in a petition filed on his behalf it was stated that the accused was proceeding on official duty. The driver of the vehicle having fallen ill on the way, became incapable to drive the vehicle. As the accused was going on urgent official business, he had no other alternative but to drive the vehicle himself. It was further stated that the accused had his learner's hence though the period of the said licence had then expired. There was no mark of 'L' in front of the vehicle to indicate that the driver was learning to drive the vehicle. In context of these facts, the plea taken by the accused was that the offence, if any, was committed while the accused was acting or purporting to act in the discharge of .his official duty and as no previous sanction of the State Government has been obtained in the case, it is not open to the Court to take cognizance of the offence as contemplated u/s -197, Criminal Procedure Code. 3. The learned trial Court accepted the above contention of the accused and held that in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of Section 197, Code of Criminal Procedure are attracted and sanction of the State Government as necessary to prosecute the accused. He recorded an order of acquittal of the accused. Hence this appeal by the State. 4. The only question for consideration is whether at the time of driving the vehicle, the accused was acting or purported to act in the discharge of his official duty. It is needless to say that it is not the official duty of the accused who was a Block Development Officer, to drive the vehicle much less without a licence. The learned trial Court was conscious of this position. It is needless to say that it is not the official duty of the accused who was a Block Development Officer, to drive the vehicle much less without a licence. The learned trial Court was conscious of this position. He, however, as of the opinion that circumstances compelled the accused to drive the vehicle as he bad some urgent official duty and as be could not allow himself to be stranded on the way, he bad to take the steering. In the circumstance of the case the accused while driving the vehicle can be taken to have done so in discharge of his official duty. This approach of the learned Magistrate is wholly erroneous. 5. Undoubtedly the circumstances under which the accused was forced to drive the vehicle may be advanced by way of defence which the Court has to decide on its merits. But it is not the same thing to say that in the circumstances while the accused was driving the vehicle, he was discharging his official duty. Whether sanction u/s 197, Code of Criminal Procedure is necessary or not in a particular case has to be determined with reference to the nature of the official duty that the accused had to perform. The test is whether the act complained of is directly concerned with his official duty so that, if questioned it could be claimed to have been done in course of his official business. There must be some reasonable connection of the act complained of with his official duty. In K. Satwant Singh Vs. The State of Punjab it was held that the act complained of must bear such relation to the duty that the public servant could lay a reasonable, but not a pretended or fanciful claim, that he did it in the course of the performance of his duty. Some offences cannot by their very nature, be regarded as having been committed by the public servant while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of the official 'duty. Even where the official status of the accused furnishes an occasion or opportunity for the commission of the offence that would not establish any connection between the offence committed and the performance of his duty. In other words there must be some nexus between the act done by the accused and the scope and extent of his duties. 6. Even where the official status of the accused furnishes an occasion or opportunity for the commission of the offence that would not establish any connection between the offence committed and the performance of his duty. In other words there must be some nexus between the act done by the accused and the scope and extent of his duties. 6. In another decision of the Supreme court in Baijnath Gupta and Others Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, ., the same view has been reterated. Their Lordships observed that it is not every offence permitted by a public servant that requires sanction for prosecution u/s 197(1): Criminal Procedure Code, nor even every act done by him while he is actually en gaged in the performance of his official duties, but where the act complained of is directly concerned with his official duties so that, if questioned, it could be claimed to have been done by virtue of the office, then sanction would be necessary. What is important is the quality of the let and the protection contemplated by Section 197 will be attracted where the act falls within the scope and range of his official duty. If it is unconnected with the official duty, then there is no protection. It is only when it is either within the scope of the official duty or in excess of it the protection is claimable. This view was also expressed in a number of decisions: (See AIR 1948 128 (Privy Council) ., AIR 1949 117 (Privy Council) and; AIR 1939 43 (Federal Court) .. 7. On the basis of the materials on record it cannot be held that there was any requisite nexus between the act of driving the vehicle and the official duties of the accused as the Block Development Officer.... Under such circumstances, section u/s 197, Criminal Procedure Code is wholly unnecessary for prosecution of the accused for an offence under the Motor Vehicles Act. 8. A point was raised by Mr. Mohanty that the appeal is not maintainable as there was no trial of the accused. The learned Standing Counsel, however, urged that in that case the appeal may be treated as a revision and for further enquiry. The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused on the ground that no sanction has been obtained. 8. A point was raised by Mr. Mohanty that the appeal is not maintainable as there was no trial of the accused. The learned Standing Counsel, however, urged that in that case the appeal may be treated as a revision and for further enquiry. The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused on the ground that no sanction has been obtained. The effect of his order is that he refused to take cognizance, as without such sanction no cognizance can be taken by the Court. It was purely on this legal ground he acquitted the accused. In view of the position of law as stated above, it was not proper for him to record an order of acquittal and in that view the appeal may be treated as a revision and the petition must be allowed. In the result, the order of acquittal is set aside, Magistrate is directed to dispose of the case in accordance with the law. Final Result : Allowed