JUDGMENT J.P. Chaturvedi, J. - This is an application u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. There are six applicants. Applicants 1 to 4 Babu Lal Pathak, R. R. Shangloo, Vishnu Gopal Shukla and V. B. Singh were Inspectors in the Central Excise Department and were posted at Jhansi at the relevant time. Applicants 5 and 6 R.P. Singh and Laxmi Narain were sepoys in the Central Excise. Applicants Nos. 1 to 4 had also been appointed Officers of Customs Department by the Central Government by notification dated 1st February, 1963. They were also appointed Gold Control Officers under the Gold Control Act, 1968. 2. On 2nd May, 1973 at 6 P.M. these applicants went to the shop of Purshottam Narain alias Jhallu, goldsmith situate at Mauranipuj" in the district of Jhansi. They took search of the shop. But they could not find anything incriminating. They also took search of the house of Purshottam Narain and were not successful in getting anything incriminating although they weighed all the gold ornaments which the women of the house were putting on. The . gold and gel J ornaments found at the shop and the house of Purshottam Narain did not exceed the legal limit. Thereafter V. B. Singh, Inspector, started abusing Purshottam Narain. When he and Babu Lai Bi-latiya protested they did not stop abusing. Babu Lai Pathak on the other hand asked the tosspots, applicants Nos. 5 and 6 to catchhold of Purshottam Narain and Vishnu Gopal, R. K. Shangloo and V. P. Singh started beating him with sticks, with the result that he was seriously injured. 3. Purshottam Narain alias Jhallu made complaint of the incident on 22nd May, 1973 in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi. In the course of complaint the present applicants made an application that the prosecution of the applicants may be quashed. This application was disposed of by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by his order dated 29th September, 1974. He being of the opinion that the prosecution of the applicants was not barred by the provisions of Sections 197 Code of Criminal Procedure & 155 of the Customs Act. This application was disposed of by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by his order dated 29th September, 1974. He being of the opinion that the prosecution of the applicants was not barred by the provisions of Sections 197 Code of Criminal Procedure & 155 of the Customs Act. Another application was moved on behalf of the applicants on 20th November, 1974 in which they contended that the prosecution of the applicants was barred by section 137(2)(b), 155B of Customs Act 1962 and Sections 97(2) and 108 of Gold Control Act read with Section 197 Code of Criminal Procedure. This application was disposed of by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 13th February, 1975. He negatived the plea of the applicants. 4. In this case the main contention on behalf of the applicants is that the prosecution of the applicants was barred by the provisions of section 197 Code of Criminal Procedure inasmuch as the applicants acted or purported to act in the discharge of their official duty and they were public servants removable by the Central Government. They could not, therefore, be prosecuted without the sanction of the Central Government. The following questions arise for consideration in this case : (1) Whether the applicants or any of them are public servants removable by the Central Government ? (2) Whether the applicants acted or purported to act in the discharge of their official duty? Section 197(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 provides : When any person who is a Judge within the meaning of section 19 of the Indian Penal Code, or when any Magistrate, or when any public servant who is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of a State Government or the (Central Government), 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- (a) in the case of a person employed in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government; and (b) in the case of a person employed in connection with the affairs of a State Government. 5. 5. So far as the first point is concerned it has been contended on behalf of the applicants that Babu Lal Pathak, R.K. Shangloo, Vishnu Gopal Shukla and V.B. Singh were Inspectors of the Central Excise Department and that by notification of the Central Government all the four of them were appointed Customs Officers, and, therefore, sanction of the Central Government for their prosecution was necessary. It is not disputed that these four applicants were initially appointed Excise Inspectors and at the relevant time they held that post. It is also not in dispute that as an Excise Inspector these four applicants as well as the applicants Nos. 5 and 6 were removable by the Excise Collector. learned Counsel for the applicants has, however, referred to the notification of the Ministry of Finance dated February 1, 1963, appointing Excise Inspectors of Central Excise Department in any place in India officers of Customs Department. learned Counsel has contended that the appointments of the four applicants having been made by the Central Government they were removable by the Central Government, The four applicants as mentioned already held the post of Inspectors of Central Excise and they were appointed Customs Officers by virtue of their being Excise Inspectors. In other words their appointment as Customs Officers was ex-officio. Their removal as Excise Inspectors could still be ordered by the Excise Collector and with their removal from those posts they ceased to be Customs Officers also. In the circumstances it cannot be said that they were public servants removable by the Central Government as contemplated by section 197 Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. On the second point it is clear that the applicants did not act or purport to act in their official capacity in beating Purshottam Narain. In Pukhraj Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, AIR 1973 SC 2591 the Post Master General, Rajatshan (Respondent No. 2) came on tour to Jodhpur on 25-10-1971. He inspected the Post Office at Jodhpur at 5.45 P.M. When he just sat in his jeep after inspection the complainant submitted his representation for candling his transfer and he started narrating his story. Respondent No. 2 being enraged with the complainant kicked him in his abdomen and abused him. It was held that the act of Respondent No. 2 was not such as may be said to have been done in purported exercise of his duty. Respondent No. 2 being enraged with the complainant kicked him in his abdomen and abused him. It was held that the act of Respondent No. 2 was not such as may be said to have been done in purported exercise of his duty. The offence should have been committed when an act is done in the execution of duty or when an act purports to be done in the execution of duty. What is necessary is that the offence must be in respect of an act done or purported to be done in the discharge of an official duty. It does not apply to acts done purely in a private capacity by a public servant. There must be something in the nature of the act complained of that attaches it to the official character of the persons doing it. A public servant can only be said to act or purport to act in the discharge of his official duty, if his act is such as to lie within the scope of his official duty. The test may well be whether the public servant, if challenged, can reasonably claim that, what he does, he does in virtue of his office. There must be a reasonable connection between the act and discharge of official duty, the act must bear such relation to the duty that the accused could lay a reasonable, but not a pretended or fanciful claim. That he did it in the course of the performance of his duty. 7. In the present case the applicants had finished taking search of the house as well as the shop of Purshottam Narain. They were not acting in exercise of their duty after the search was over when they indulged in abusing him or in beating him. In the circumstances the bar u/s 197 Code of Criminal Procedure was not applicable to the present case. This will, however, not stand as a bar to the applicants from taking their defence during the trial. 8. The application has, therefore, no force and is rejected. The stay order dated 21-3-1975 is vacated and the lower Court record be sent back forthwith.