( 1 ) THIS revision, is directed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, mysore, confirming on appeal the judgment of the JMFC, Chamarajanagar, in a case under Ss. . 332 and 335 of the IPC, convicting the petitioner-accused and sentencing him to pay a tine of Rs. 300 for the offence under S. 332 IPC and to pay a line of Rs. . 100 for the offence under S. 355 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case was that the petitioner-accused was one of the non-optical members of the Social Welfare Sub-Committee of the taluk Development Board, Chamarajanagar. The complainant, Shivaiah (PW. 2) the Social Welfare Inspector and Rangegowda (PW. 1) the block Development Officer, were official members of that Committee. The President of the said Committee was Venkataiah (PW. 3) and he was presumably a non-official member of the said Committee. It appears, rangegowda (P W. 1) had deputed Shivaiah (PW. 2) to go along with the accused for an inspection of the Girls' Hostel which was being managed by the Committee. This inspection took place on 29-11-1971. According to the accused he detected at that time that the Watchman of the girls' Hostel was found in a room of the Girls' Hostel and that was objectionable according to him. Shivaiah (PW. 2) however did not find anything objectionable in that conduct of the Watchman. On a subsequent date, i. e. , on 20-12-1971 the meeting of the Social Welfare Sub-Committee was called while "venkataiah (PW. 3) presided. Rangegowda, bdo (PW. 1), Shivaiah, Social Welfare Inspector (PW. 2) and the accused were present in the meeting. When the affairs of the Girls' hostel were being discussed, the accused raised the objection that at the time of his inspection on 29-11-1971 the conduct of the Watchman was not found satisfactory. At that time PW. 2 Shivaiah (PW. 2) objected that the complaint of the accused was incorrect and that no objection could be taken to the conduct of the Watchman. That gave rise to a quarrel between Shivaiah (PW. 2) and the accused. The latter abused Shivaiah, gave a fist blow on his mouth and also kicked him with chappals which he was putting on at that time, Rangegowda (PW. 1) at that time asked Venkataiah (PW. That gave rise to a quarrel between Shivaiah (PW. 2) and the accused. The latter abused Shivaiah, gave a fist blow on his mouth and also kicked him with chappals which he was putting on at that time, Rangegowda (PW. 1) at that time asked Venkataiah (PW. 3), the President to record all that in his minute book which he did and of which the record is Ext. P2. Thereafter Shivaiah (PW. 2) filed the FIR, Ext. P1 before the Police. He was medically examined by the Doctor C. Kamalamma (PW. 6) and some mark of injury was found over his mouth and tenderness as well as pain were detected on the portion of the thigh where the kicking was administered. All this gave rise to a case under Ss. 332 and 355, IPC. ( 3 ) THE petitioner-accused however pleaded not guilty. He denied the incident and did not admit that he at all administered any beating to Shivaiah (PW. 2 ). ( 4 ) THE prosecution produced Rangegowda, EDO (PW. 1), shivaiah, Social Welfare Inspector (PW. 2) complainant, Venkataiah, the president of the Social Welfare ' Sub-Committee (PW. 3) (, Dr. C. Kamalamma (PW. 6) the Lady Medical Officer, besides B. P. Uthappa the Sub-Inspector of Police (PW. 7 ). The other witnesses were more or less formal in character. The accused did not produce any witness and in his statement before the Court however he admitted that Shivaiah (PW. 2) attended that meeting in his official capacity. The learned Magistrate believed the prosecution version and found the accused guilty of the two offences under Ss. 332 and 355 of the IPC. He sentenced him to undergo RI for 3 months under S. 332 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 under Sec. 355 IPC. Thereafter, the accused came in appeal before the learned Sessions Judge and although his appeal was not successful, yet the learned Sessions Judge reduced the sentence, inasmuch as he awarded a sentence of Rs. 300 for the offence under S. 332 IPC and a fine of Rs. 100 for the offence under S. 355 IPC. The accused felt dissatisfied with the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and so he filed the present revision petition. ( 5 ) WHILE sitting. in revision, this Court does not ordinarily re- appreciate the evidence. 300 for the offence under S. 332 IPC and a fine of Rs. 100 for the offence under S. 355 IPC. The accused felt dissatisfied with the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and so he filed the present revision petition. ( 5 ) WHILE sitting. in revision, this Court does not ordinarily re- appreciate the evidence. That is an essential function of the trial Magistrate or the first appellate Judge. If a dependable view could be taken in favour of the prosecution, while appreciating the evidence, that would be the end of the matter. It is not a valid argument that any other Cpurt left to itself might have taken a different view than what has been taken by the Magistrate or by the Sessions Judge. In order to interfere in revision, yet more compellling circumstances, have got to be pointed out. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, rather confined his argument by asking for a re-appreciation of evidence and pointed out one lacuna here and one there, meaning thereby that the evidence before the Magistrate was not sufficient, according to him for conviction. On the other hand the learned State Public Prosecutor pointed out that the statements of the three witnesses PWs. 1 to 3 who were all eye-witnesses, were most convincing and it was proved before the trial Magistrate that the accused abused Shivaiah (PW. 2) and not only did that, but also assaulted him by giving a blow on his mouth and by kicking him with chappals. It could not be denied that Shivaiah (PW. 2) was performing his official duty. He was an official member of the Committee. According to Rangegowda (PW. 1), he was deputed by him to go and to inspect the hostel along with the accused. In the meeting according to Rangegowda (PW. 1), Shivaiah (PW. 2) and Venkataiah (PW. 3), the girls' Hostel management was the subject matter of discussion. Both shivaiah (PW. 2) as well as the accused were entrusted with that discussion. Since the accused had gone for inspection of that hostel along with Shivaiah (PW. 2), he raised the objection regarding the conduct of the Watchman of that hostel. Shivaiah (PW. 2) had performed an official duty of inspecting that hostel but he had no objection to the conduct of the Watchman. Therefore, at the occasion of Shivaiah (PW. Since the accused had gone for inspection of that hostel along with Shivaiah (PW. 2), he raised the objection regarding the conduct of the Watchman of that hostel. Shivaiah (PW. 2) had performed an official duty of inspecting that hostel but he had no objection to the conduct of the Watchman. Therefore, at the occasion of Shivaiah (PW. 2) performing his public duty, that the accused assaulted him and the offence under S. 332 was committed as he caused him hurt, which is clear from the statement, of the Dr. C. Kamalamma (PW. 6 ). ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel contended that there was no sufficient provocation from the accused who simply raised the complaint against the Watchman and Shivaiah (PW. 2), should not have taken an exception, indicating thereby that it was Shivaiah (PW. 2) who perhaps assaulted the accused and the latter retaliated. The learned Counsel further argued in the alternative that there was some provocation from the direction of Shivaiah (PW. 2) and that is why the accused participated in the assault. All these arguments are nothing but another phase of the contention, that the evidence was not properly appreciated by the two courts below. As I have stated above, that could not be the purpose while deciding a revision. The three witnesses -Rangegowda (PW. 1), shivaiah (PW. 2) and Venkataiah (PW. 3) gave out a consistant version of the incident and the said version was believed by the trial magistrate as well as by the learned Sessions Judge. It could not be? stated that the inference drawn by the two Courts below was in any manner perverse or illegal and hence interference in revision would not be possible. ( 7 ) IT was stated that the accused gave the beating while performing his official duty as he was taking part in that Committee and therefore a plea was raised that prior sanction of the Government was required under S. 197 of the Crlpc before the prosecution could be instituted against him. But in order to attract that section the offence had to be so connected with the official act so as to form part of the same transaction as if it was inseparable from it. The act must be shown to be in" discharge of official duty or fairly purporting to be in such discharge. But in order to attract that section the offence had to be so connected with the official act so as to form part of the same transaction as if it was inseparable from it. The act must be shown to be in" discharge of official duty or fairly purporting to be in such discharge. The word 'while' used in S. 197, must be read with the words that follow and is not to be construed strictly in its meaning of time. Therefore it was rightly concluded by the learned Sessions Judge that the assault made by the accused could not be a component of the public duty to be performed by him. It could not be stated that he was acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty while committing the assault. As such S. 197 was not attracted and no prior sanction of the government was needed. ( 8 ) IN this view of the matter, in my opinion, the two offences imputed againsit the accused were duly made out and no exception could be taken to the order of conviction made by the two Courts below. ( 9 ) THIS revision is without any merit and the same is dismissed. --- *** --- .