Order.- These are two petitions, one filed by the State and the other by the accused in the case praying to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 47 of 1973 on the file of the Court of the Special Magistrate-cum-IV Additional MunsifMagistrate, Visakhapatnam. The main ground, if not the only ground, on which the relief is grounded is that the prosecution of the accused who acted in good faith as District Magistrate and Collector, Visakhapatnam, under the provisions of Chapter IX, Criminal Procedure Code, was not maintainable without the sanction of the State Government under section 132, Criminal Procedure Code. 2. In order to make plain the circumstances under which the complaint is put forward against the accused, it is necessary to set forth the history of the matter. The accused was the District Magistrate and Collector, Visakhapatnam during the peak period of the turbulent agitation in the Andhra area for the bifurcation of the State of Andhra Pradesh. On 5th February, 1973 at about 11-30 a.m. while the accused was attending to his duties in the office, 1 group of 30 agitators including the complainant entered the office of the District Collector. They entered the office room of the Personal Assistant to the District Collector and were requesting him also to join the strike and support the agitation. By then the non-gazetted Officers in Andhra area were already in strike. They were insisting the Gazetted officers also to join the strike. The personal Assistant to the Collector told them that he had to think over the matter, and asked them to go away. But the agitators declined to go away and raised slogans of ‘Jai Andhra’ in the room of the Personal Assistant to the Collector. Obviously, the District Magistrate and Collector, disturbed by the slogans, came into the room of his personal assistant and abused the agitators and questioned them as to with whose permission they entered the Office of the District Collector. He then caught hold of the right hand of the complainant and pushed her and asked her to get out of the room. In that situation the veil of her saree also slipped from her shoulders. The complainant protested against the acts of the accused. The agitators told the accused that it was not proper for the accused to abuse them and assault them in a rude manner. In that situation the veil of her saree also slipped from her shoulders. The complainant protested against the acts of the accused. The agitators told the accused that it was not proper for the accused to abuse them and assault them in a rude manner. It is further alleged that the accused beat one Sambhu Rao and another Balaram and pushed them. It is also fruther stated that the accused was all the while shouting to push out the complainant and arrest her. Meanwhile the local police and the Central Reserve Police arrived on the scene. All the agitators were arrested and were taken to No. II Town Police Station. They were later on remanded to judicial custody. The complainant and 29 others are being prosecuted in C.C. No. 44 of 1973 on the file of the Munsif-Magistrate,Visakhapatnam for criminal trespass and other offences. On 7th February, 1973, the complainant filed this complaint before the judicial First Class Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, but she was directed by the Court to file the complaint after the N.G.Os. strike was over. She later presented the present complaint on 6th April, 1973. The learned Magistrate after examining the complainant and another witness ordered issue of process to the accused. The State has now filed Crl.M.P. No. 1536 of 1973 praying to dismiss the complaint, while the accused himself has filed Crl. M.P. No. 1815 of 1973 for quashing the proceedings against him claiming the protection provided by section 132, Criminal Procedure Code. 3. Now the question that requires determination is whether the act of the District Magistrate in summarily suppressing the disturbance by use of force is protected by the fire armoury provided by section 132, Criminal Procedure Code. Section 132, Criminal Procedure Code which is under Chapter IX, Part IV, Criminal Procedure Code reads as follows: "No prosecution against any person for any act purporting to be done under this chapter shall be instituted in any Criminal Court, except with the sanction of the State Government; and (a) no Magistrate or Police Officer acting under this Chapter it good faith; (b) no officer acting under section 131 in good faith; (c) no person doing any act in good faith, in compliance with a requisition under section 128 or section 130; and (d) * * * shall be deemed to have thereby committed an offence.” 4. Sections 127 and 128 in Chapter IX Criminal Procedure Code deal with the duty of a Magistrate in dealing with an assembly of 5 or more persons likely to cause a disturbance of the public peace and read as follows: “Section 127 (1)- Any Magistrate or officer in charge of the Police Station may command any unlawful assembly, or any assembly of five or more persons likely to cause a disturbance of the public peace, to disperse; and it shall thereupon be the duty of the members of such assembly to disperse accordingly. (2) This section applies also to the police in the towns of Calcutta and Bombay. S. 128.- If upon being so commanded, any such assembly does not disperse, or if, without being so commanded, it conducts itself in such a manner as to show a determination not to dispese, any magistrate or officer in charge of a police station, whether within or without the presidency towns, may proceed to disperse such assembly by force, and may require the assistance of any male person, not being an officer, soldier, sailor or airman in the armed forces and acting as such, for the purpose of dispersing such assembly, and, if necessary, arresting and confining the persons who form part of it, in order to disperse such assembly or that they may be punished according to law. Sections 129 to 131 enact the circumstances under which armed forces can be requisitioned by the Magistrate for quelling disorder.“ 5. A close and careful leading of the provisions of sections 127 and 128, Criminal Procedure Code, would make it plain that any Magistrate or officer-in-charge of a police station may command any unlawful assembly or a potential unlawful assembly likely to cause a disturbance of the public peace, to disperse. If on being so commanded, such assembly does not disperse or without being so commanded it conducts itself in such a manner as to show a determination not to disperse, the Magistrate or police officer may use civil force for dispersing such assembly. 6. Section 132 affords adequate protection to public servants against prosecution without the prior sanction of the State Government for any act purported to be done for the preservation of the public peace. The provisions have a potentially wide application. 6. Section 132 affords adequate protection to public servants against prosecution without the prior sanction of the State Government for any act purported to be done for the preservation of the public peace. The provisions have a potentially wide application. To attract the provisions of this section, it is enough if the public servant purported to act in exercise of his official duty. In other words, there must be a reasonable connection between the act of the offending official and official duty. The section should be subjected to utilitarian appraisal. It should not be so interpreted as to lose its distinctness and bite. The official actions in administering the law of”prevention of offences“should be appraised in a practical and realistic manner. No bias should be attributed to the offending official. The Magistrate or police officer who has the duty of dispersing a mob is placed in a very difficult situation. Undoubtedly, the decision as to the use of force for the suppression of disturbance is a difficult and delicate one and cannot be weighed in”golden scales“. In his decision he can only be guided by the concomitant circumstances. In that situation the first question he should ask himself is”for what purpose has the mob come together?“A knowledge of its purpose usually furnishes the crucial clue to the determination of the time and mode of suppression”. 7. New sources of public disorder have come up to the surface especially during the last two decades. The normal channels of pressure through political lobbying are not always sufficient to carry the views of minority groups. Public demonstrations and protests of outrage and violence are often resorted to achieve their goal. In the contemporary context of high and growing rate of agitations and the prevailing attitude of the public, no attempt should be permitted to adversely affect the prestigious position of the Magistrates under the Code in dealing affirmatively with defiant mobs. It should not be forgotten that the primary obligation of preservation of public peace and for the suppression of disturbance rests with the Magistrate. 8. It should not be forgotten that the primary obligation of preservation of public peace and for the suppression of disturbance rests with the Magistrate. 8. It is contended by Sri Rama Rao, the learned Counsel for the complainant, that the District Magistrate was not entitled to the protection of section 132, Criminal Procedure Code, as there is nothing in the complaint or in the sworn statement to show that he commanded the assembly to disperse and it is only if the assembly disobeys or shows a determination to disobey, such command that civil force should be used in dispersing such an unlawful assembly. In effect, his submission was that it is only during the trial that the accused should establish that he had commanded the unlawful assembly to disperse and that the assembly disobeyed his command. He sought to derive support from the decisions reported in (a) Pukhraj v. State of Rajasthan1, (b) Bhagwan Prasad Srivastava v. N.P. Mishra2, (c) Subbaschandra Bose v. Venkata Ranga Reddy3. In the first case, the allegation against a public servant, the Postmaster-General, was that he kicked the complainant, a clerk in the Head Post Office, when the complainant was submitting his application for cancellation of his transfer. In the second case the offending official was a Civil Surgeon. The allegation against him was that he abused the complainant, an Assistant Civil Surgeon, in the operation theatre before the patients and staff and ordered the hospital cook to “turn out this badmash” and that the cook actually pushed out the complainant. The third one related to a case where the police officer was alleged to have beaten with a stick on the face of the complainant and extracted a false confession from him by causing an injury. On the facts and circumstances of those cases it was held that the prosecution was not barred for want of sanction under section 197, Criminal Procedure Code. 9. In Nagaraj v. State of Mysore4, the Supreme Court observed as follows: “When a complaint is made to a criminal Court against any police officer and makes allegations indicating that the police officer had acted or purported to act under sections 127 and 128 of the Code and in so doing committed some offence complained of, the Court will not entertain the complaint unless it appears that State Government had sanctioned the prosecution of that Police Officer. If the allegations in the complaint do not indicate such facts, the Court can have no ground for looking to the sanction of the Government and in the absence of such a sanction for refusing to entertain the complaint in the same manner as it would have done in connection with complaints against any other person”. What then are the facts of this case ? Do the facts as disclosed by he complaint and the sworn statement show that (i) there was an assembly of five or more persons likely to cause a disturbance of the public peace; (ii) that such an assembly was commanded to dispense; (iii) that either the assembly did not disperse on such command or, if no command had been given, its conduct bad shown a determination not to disperse; and (iv) that in the circumstances force was used against the members of the assembly? It is clear from the complaint and the sworn statement that in connection with the agitation for separate Andhra State the complainant and some other male and female agitators, thirty in number, went to the office of the Personal Assistant to the Collector, Visakhapatnam. They insisted on the personal Assistant to participate in the non-Gazetted Officers’ strike. But the Personal Assistant told the agitators that he has to think over the matter, and asked them to go away. But did they disperse? They declined to disperse and raised slogans of “Jai Andhra”. At this stage, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate annoyed with the disorder in his office appeared on the scene. Orders promulgated under section 144, Criminal Procedure Code, were in force in the area. The District Magistrate abused the agitators and questioned them as to with whose permission they entered the Collectorate. Then the agitators told the District Magistrate that they had come to request the Personal Assistant to participate in the movement and make it a success. That only showed their settled intention not to disperse and carry their avowed unlawful object into effect. Then the District Magistrate caught hold of the complainant and pushed her forcibly. Even then the mob made no endeavour to disperse. The complainant rebelled and chastised the Magistrate for pushing her. Then the Magistrate abused her and asked her to get out. When two others intervened, he pushed them also. Then the District Magistrate caught hold of the complainant and pushed her forcibly. Even then the mob made no endeavour to disperse. The complainant rebelled and chastised the Magistrate for pushing her. Then the Magistrate abused her and asked her to get out. When two others intervened, he pushed them also. Meanwhile, the Central Reserve Police and local police arrived on the scene and arrested all the agitators, thirty in number, and sent them for judicial custody. The complainant and 29 others are being prosecuted in C.C. No. 44 of 1973 on the file of the MunsifMagistrate, Visakhapatnam, for offence of rioting and trespass. 10. These facts clearly show that there was an assembly of 30 agitators in the office of the Collector. Their assembly in large number was obviously calculated to inspire people with terror. They had been asked by the Personal Assistant who was being pressed to join the strike to disperse. They raised “Jai Andhra” slogans and showed a determination not to disperse. In fact, even after the Collector came and questioned them as to with whose permission they had come in, they had never shown any inclination to disperse. They only showed their settled intention not to disperse. It is common knowledge that the avowed object of the agitators at that time was to achieve their object by violence and destruction of public property. The Magistrate was aware of the purpose of the mob. Among the array of alternatives available to the District Magistrate in that situation, the sound and efficient one to adopt was to use force against the agitators. The Magistrates are not mystic sages and cannot be expected to suppress sudden disturbances by esoteric meditations. Therefore, provision is specifically made in section 128, Criminal Procedure Code, for the use of civil force to quell disorder. It twill be service to sound thinking to hold [that the Magistrate’s action in using force in such a situation to disperse the unlawful assembly was not only legal but equitable. It is, therefore, clear that the District Magistrate was acting under Chapter IX, Criminal Procedure Code, and is, therefore, entitled to the protection under section 132, Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, no prosecution could have been instituted against the District Magistrate without the sanction of the State Government. 11. It is, therefore, clear that the District Magistrate was acting under Chapter IX, Criminal Procedure Code, and is, therefore, entitled to the protection under section 132, Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, no prosecution could have been instituted against the District Magistrate without the sanction of the State Government. 11. The proceedings in C.C. No. 47 of 1973 on the file of the Fourth Additional Munsif-Magistrate, Visakhapatnam are void and they are accordingly quashed.