( 1 ) THE petitioner before this Court is a Sub-Inspector of Police. A complaint was filed against him in the Court of the Additional Munsiff-Magistrate, karkal, alleging that he had committed offences under Sections 325 and 342 IPC. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and issued process against the accused. After the accused entered appearance, he raised a preliminary objection before the Magistrate that the Court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences as the same was barred by the provisions of S. 170 of the Mysore Police Act, 1963. After hearing arguments, the learned Magistrate upheld the said contention taken by the accused and discharged the accused. The complainant filed a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge challenging the said order of discharge passed by the learned Magistrate. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, South Kanara, allowed the revision petition, set aside the order of discharge passed by the learned Magistrate and remanded the case to the lower Court with a direction to proceed with the case according to law. This order passed by the learned sessions Judge is challenged in this revision petition. ( 2 ) IT is necessary to set out the facts of the case in order to find out whether previous sanction of the Government is necessary under S. 170 of the Mysore Police Act before the petitioner-accused could be prosecuted for the offences under Ss. 325 and 342 IPC. The complainant's case is that he is a resident of Hejamadi village and one Ananda Shetty was beaten on 13-10-1970 in Hejamadi on a public road by one Narsu Poojary and some others. Ananda Shetty filed a complaint at the Mulky Police station and the accused was the Sub-Inspector attached to the Mulky Police Station. The accused directed Ananda Shetty to produce before him the complainant and one Prakash Shetty as they had witnessed the occurrence to record their statement -. On 18-10-1970 at about 8 A. M. , the complainant and Ananda Shetty and Prakash Shetty went to the police station where the accused was present. The accused asked Ananda shetty to go away and told him that he would send the compainant and prakash Shetty after recording their statements. Thereafter, Ananda shetty left the place. On 18-10-1970 at about 8 A. M. , the complainant and Ananda Shetty and Prakash Shetty went to the police station where the accused was present. The accused asked Ananda shetty to go away and told him that he would send the compainant and prakash Shetty after recording their statements. Thereafter, Ananda shetty left the place. Then, the accused asked the complainant why he had come to support Ananda Shetty and the complainant told him that he had come there to state what he had seen. Then the accused abused him and asked him to give a statement to the effect that nothing had happened on 13-10-1970. As the complainant did not agree to this, the accused slapped the complainant on his face, pushed him inside the lock-up and locked him up there. The complainant's case is that he 'was kept in the lock-up till about 12-30 P. M. Again the accused asked the complainant whether he was prepared to give a statement as desired by him (accused ). As the complainant did not agree, the accused kicked the complainant on his thigh and assaulted him with a lathi which caused fracture to his fingers. Thereafter, being unable to bear the torture, the complainant signed a statement prepared by the accused and the accused allowed the complainant to go out. The complainant then went to the hospital and got X-ray taken which disclosed that there was fracture of the fingers. ( 3 ) THE question for consideration is, on the facts alleged in the! complaint, whether sanction of the Government is necessary before the accused is prosecuted for the alleged offences. ( 4 ) THIS Court in State of Mysore v. Manikyam, (1968) 2 Mys. L. J. 11. held as follows:"in order to claim protection of S. 170 (1) of the Mysore Police act, 1963, the material point for consideration would be whether there is reasonable connection between the act and the official duty. Where the complaint was that while the complainant was standing in the verandh of the police station taking protection against rain, accused Sub-Inspector asked him to go away and when he did not go away, the accused dragged the complainant, assaulted and arrested and later on released him on bail, held; sanction under S. 170 (1) was required for prosecuting the accused. "the above said ruling was followed by this Court in Kalyanprasad v. Radhakrishna ,cr. "the above said ruling was followed by this Court in Kalyanprasad v. Radhakrishna ,cr. R. P. 257/69. This Court also took a similar view in State of Mysore v, Satyendra Kumar, (1972) 1 Mys. L. J, 637. But the decision of the Supreme Court in state of Maharashtra v. Atma Ram, AIR. 1966 SC, 1786, had not been brought to the notice of this Court in the abovementioned decisions and these decisions do not seem to be in conformity with the abovesaid decision of the Supreme court. There cannot be any doubt that the decision in State of Maharashtra v. Atma Ram (4) would apply fully to the instant case. In the above said case on a complaint given by one Akaram that his brother lahanu had disappeared, after registering a case some police officers, who were accused in the case, were sent to the village for making enquiry. They contacted some persons in the village, but they denied knowledge of the whereabouts of Lahanu. These persons were assaulted by the police Officers and detained that night in the office of the Gram Panchayat. Then the Police Officers took some confessional statement from one of these persons by using force. Thereafter, a complaint was filed against the Police Officers for their having committed offences under Ss. 330, 342, 343 and 348 IPC. The Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused. In the appeal filed by the accused, the High Court took the view that the prosecution of the accused was barred under S. 161 (1) of the Bombay police Act and accordingly allowed the appeal and quashed the convictions and sentence imposed upon the accused. ( 5 ) IT may be pointed out that the wording of S. 161 (1) of the Bombay police Act is similar to 3. 170 (1) of the Mysore Police Act. The Bombay act also gives protection to a police officer for any act done by him under colour or in excess of any such duty or authority as aforesaiid and no prosecution shall be entertained more than six months after the date of the act complained of. ( 6 ) IN State of Maharashtra v. Atma Ram (4), their Lordships have pointed out that in order to seek protection conferred by 5. ( 6 ) IN State of Maharashtra v. Atma Ram (4), their Lordships have pointed out that in order to seek protection conferred by 5. 161 (1) of the bombay Police Act, there must be a reasonable connection or nexus between the alleged act of assault and confinement and the duty or authority imposed upon the officer under the Bombay Police Act or any other enactment conferring powers on the police under the colour of which the act may be said to have been done, and that unless there is a reasonable connection beween the act complained of and the powers and duties of the office, it cannot be said that the act was done under the colour of the office. Their Lordships followed the earlier decision in State of Maharashtra's case (4 ). Their Lordships have pointed out that the provisions of ss. 161 and 163 Crpc emphasize the fact that the police officer is prohibited from beating or confining persons with a view to induce them to make statements and that alleged acts of beating and confinement thus fall completely outside the scope of duties of the police officers and they are not entitled, therefore, to the mantle of protection conferred by S. 161 (1) of the Bombay Police Act. In Paragraph 3 of the judgment their Lordships have stated as follows :" In State, of Maharashtra v. Narharrao (Cr. App. 214 of 1966) air 1966 SC 1783 , judgment in which has been pronounced just now, we have considered the true legal effect of 5. 161 (1) of the bombay Police Act. We have expressed the view in that case that there must be a reasonable connection or nexus between the alleged act and the duty or authority imposed upon the officer under the bombay Police Act or any other enactment conferring powers on the police under the colour of which the act may be said to have been done. Unless there is a reasonable connection between the act complained of and the powers and duties of the office, it is difficult to say that the act was done under the colour of the office. In the present case it was said that the respondents were making an enquiry under s. 64 (b) of the Bombay Police Act which states : 64. It shall be the duty of every police officer. (a ). . . . . In the present case it was said that the respondents were making an enquiry under s. 64 (b) of the Bombay Police Act which states : 64. It shall be the duty of every police officer. (a ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b) to the best of his ability to obtain intelligence concerning the commission of cognizable offences or designs to commit such offences, and to lay such information and to take such other steps, consistent with law and with the orders of his superiors as shall be best calculated to bring offenders to justice or to prevent the commission of cognizable and within his view of non-cognizable offences'. It is apparent in this case that the first information report was recorded on September 5, 1962 on the enquiry report of respondent no. 1 and investigation commenced thereafter. There is nothing it. the language of 5. 64 (b) of the Bombay Police Act to suggest that the police officer is authorised to beat the persons examined or to confine them for the purpose of inducing them to make a particular statement. S. 161, Crlpc empowers any police officer investigating a crime or any other police officer acting on his requisition to examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. That section further provides that such person shall be bound to answer all questions relating to such case put to him by such officer, other than questions answers to which would have a tendency to expose him to a criminal charge or to a penalty or forfeiture. It is necessary, in this connection, to notice the provisions of S. 163, Crlpc which is to the following effect: 163 (1) No police officer or other person in authority shall offer or make, or cause to be offered or made, any such inducement, threat or promise as is mentioned in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 S. 24. (2) But no police officer or other person shall prevent, by any caution or otherwise, any person from making in the course of any investigation under this Chapter any statement which he may be disposed to make of his own free will'. The provisions of Ss. (2) But no police officer or other person shall prevent, by any caution or otherwise, any person from making in the course of any investigation under this Chapter any statement which he may be disposed to make of his own free will'. The provisions of Ss. 161 and 163 of the Crlpc emphasize the fect that a police officer is prohibited from beating or confining persons with a view to induce them to make statement. In. view of the statutory prohibition it cannot, possibly, be said that the acts complained of, in this case, are acts done by the respondents under the colour of their duty or authority. In our opinion, there is no connection in this case between the acts complained of and the office of the respondents and the duties and obligations imposed on them by law. On the other hand, the alleged acts fall completely outside the scope of the duties of the respondents and they are not entitled therefore to the mantle of protection conferred by 3. 161 (1) of the Bombay Police act, This view is borne out by the decision of this Court in state of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Venugopal ( AIR 1964 SC 33 ), in which the effect of S. 53 of the Madras District Police Act was construed by this court and it was held that the protection of that section cannot be extended to police officers accused of beating a person suspected of a crime or confining him in the course of investigation. A similar view has been expressed by Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Narayan Hari v. Yeshwant Raoji (AIR 1928 Bom. 352 (FB), in which a Sub-Inspector of Police while investigating a cognizable offence against two berads sent for the plaintiff and questioned him as to his connection with the berads. The plaintiff disclaimed all knowledge about the berads. Then it was alleged defendant No. 1, the Sub-Inspector, grew angry and abused the plaintiff and pulled him up by his moustache. It was further alleged that defendant no. 2 at the instance of defendant No. 1 beat the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a suit to recover damages from the defendants for their alleged wrongful treatment of him. Then it was alleged defendant No. 1, the Sub-Inspector, grew angry and abused the plaintiff and pulled him up by his moustache. It was further alleged that defendant no. 2 at the instance of defendant No. 1 beat the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a suit to recover damages from the defendants for their alleged wrongful treatment of him. It was held by the Full Bench that the alleged assault or battery cannot be said to have been committed under colour or in excess of such duty, or authority under S. 80 (l) of the Bombay Police Act and that the defendants were not entitled to notice either under S. 80 (4), Bombay District Police Act or S. 80, civil Procedure Code. " ( 7 ) AS already pointed out the above said decision of the Supreme court applies fully to the facts of the instant case. In this case also the police officer wanted to record a statement of the complainant. As the complainant did not agree to give a statement as desired by the Sub-Inspector, he was assaulted by the Sub-Inspector and confined in the police station. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have pointed out that the provisions of Ss. 161 and 163 Crpc emphasize the fact that the police officer is prohibited from beating or confiing persons with a view to induce them to make statements. In view of this statutory prohibition it cannot, therefore be said that the acts complained of by the complainant were acts done by the accused under the colour of his duty or authority and that the alleged acts of beating and confinement fall completely outside the scope of the duties of the police officer and the accused is therefore not entitled to the mantle of protection conferred by S. 170 (1) of the mysore Police Act, 1963. ( 8 ) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge has relied on the above said decision of the Supreme Court and rightly held that no previous sanction of the Government is necessary in the instant case. ( 9 ) FOR the reasons mentioned above, there arc no good grounds to interfere with the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The revision petition therefore fails and the same is dismissed. --- *** --- .