JUDGMENT 1. - This revision is directed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ajmer dated 5-11-1974, upholding the order of the Munsif-Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Ajmer City (Fast), Ajmer, dated 21-3-1974, by which the learned Magistrate rejected the plea of the accused that they were entitled to protection under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Petitioner No. 2, Gurucharan Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Anti Corruption) Ajmer, laid a trap on 29-1-1973 and caught red-handed R.N. Saxena, Depot Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and recovered from him Rs. 50/-, which he had accepted as illegal gratification. 3. While the petitioner No. 2, Gurucharan Singh was preparing recovery memos during the investigation of his trap, the complainant K.N. Gupta, non-petitioner No. 2, who was working as Assistant Depot Manager, entered the office of Depot Manager along with 40 to 50 persons and started manhandling the Anti Corruption personnel. They destroyed the evidence by tearing the relevant memo and record of the trap case and by throwing away the glass containing the mixture of powder. They even succeed R.N. Saxena from the custody of Gurucharan Singh, There upon the officers of the Anti Corruption Department contacted the Collector, the Superintendent of Police and the Additional Superintendent of Police on phone, seeking immediate necessary help. On receipt of the telephone message, the petitioner No. 1 P.J. Munshi reached the spot immediately with police staff and controlled the situation. They arrested the complainant K.N. Gupta and other Roadways personnel and sent them to Kotwali for interrogation and investigation. 4. A case under sections 147, 149, 353, 332, 224, 225 and 201 I.P.C. was registered against them. Another case under section 5(1) (c) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered against R.N. Saxena. 5. On 30-1-1973, the complainant K.N. Gupta, the Assistant Depot Manager, lodged a complaint against the petitioners to having committed offences under sections 353, 323, 332, 342, 504 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that on 29-1-1973 the complainant was on weekly rest, but he was called by the Depot Manager to attend the officer in connection with some accident. When he reached the office at about 10.45 a.m., he was directed by the Depot Manager to proceed to Dudu. At that time, the accused Gurucharan Singh was present with the Depot Manager. When he reached the office at about 10.45 a.m., he was directed by the Depot Manager to proceed to Dudu. At that time, the accused Gurucharan Singh was present with the Depot Manager. In the meantime, he came to know that a trap had been laid by the Anti-Corruption Department against the Depot Manager. On his return from Dudu at about 11.45 a.m., the same day, when the complainant entered the office premises, the accused Gurucharan Singh caught hold of his hands and dragged him towards the accused P.J. Munshi who gave him slaps mercilessly and abused him. It is further alleged that sometime later, the complainant was taken to the police station and was kept in confinement till 11.30 p.m. 6. The learned Magistrate examined the complainant and his witnesses and issued process for the attendance of the accused persons. 7. The accused person made an application in the court under section 197 IPC on 27-2-1973 alleging that they were public servants, that the acts complained of were so closely related and connected with the trap proceedings, that the accused were acting in due discharge of their duties and therefore they were entitled to protection under section 197 of the Code. 8. There are two first information reports on record showing that a case has been registered against R.N. Saxena for accepting illegal gratification. In, that first information report, there are allegations that the complainant tampered with the evidence and threatened the accused and even manhandled the accused Gurucharan Singh. Another first information report is against the complainant and others for the acts alleged to have been done by them before their arrest. 9. The learned Magistrate rejected the application on the ground that there is no reasonable connection between the acts and the discharge of the official duties of the accused persons. 10. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners preferred a revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who however, rejected the revision saying that there is no evidence on record to show that the acts complained of against the accused persons were done by them in discharge of their official duties or purported to have been done in discharge of such duties and, therefore, the stage was premature for considering whether the accused persons were entitled to protection under section 197 of the Code. 11. 11. In declining to interfere, the learned Additional Sessions Judge observes - "The copies of the F.I.Rs. are not admissible in evidence without proof. The accused persons even did not file affidavits in support of their contentions. Their contentions are, therefore, in the nature of defence, which is yet to be substantiated on record in a regular manner by regular evidence." He then proceeds to say,- "Unless and until this is done, it is very clear that the material on record does not disclose that the accused persons were acting in due discharge of their duties. As has been held by the Supreme Court and various other High Courts, the question of sanction can crop in at any stage of the proceeding. The possibility that such a question may crop in this case at the time of framing of charge or at any subsequent stage of the proceeding, cannot be ruled out. It will be at this stage that the trial court will examine the question and find out whether sanction is necessary for the prosecution of the present petitioners:- The learned Additional Sessions Judge then concludes, stating - "At the moment, there is nothing on record to show or even to suggest that the petitioners were acting or purporting to act in due discharge of their official dukes. It is rot enough to show that the accused persons are public servants. It must also be shown that their acts were covered by the provisions of section 197 Cr. P.C., inasmuch as they were done in official discharge of their duties, or they had a semblance to the official discharge of the duties. When these two facts are established, the question of sanction may come up and not before that, 12. In Matajoo Dobey v. H.C Bhari, AIR 1956 Supreme Court 44 , it was observed - "There must be a reasonable connection between the act and the discharge of official duty; the act must bear such relation to the duty that the accused could lay a reason able, but not a pretended or fanciful claim, that he did it in the course of the performance of his duty." The same view was reiterated by their Lordships in Pukhraj v. State of Rajasthan and another, AIR 1973 Supreme Court 2591 . At the stage, all that we are concerned is whether on the facts alleged in the complaint or on the material on record, it could be said that what the accused persons are alleged to have done, would be said to be in purported exercise of their duties as public servant. 13. Ordinarily, the question may arise at any stage of the proceedings. The complaint made may not disclose that the act constituting the offence was done or purported to be done in the discharge of the official duties; but the facts subsequently coming to the light in the course of the prosecution evidence at the trial, may establish the necessity for sanction. 14. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has, I am afraid, taken too technical a view of the matter. The decision on the question whether sanction is necessary under section 197 of the Code or. not, cannot, in the circumstances of the case, be deferred till the stage of defence. It is fairly clear from the complaint itself that the assault and use of criminal force, illegal confinement etc. alleged against the accused were, prima facie; related to the performance of their official duties. The learned Additional Sessions Judge should have, therefore, remanded the case to the learned Magistrate with a direction to decide the question on sanction at the very outset, if necessary, by taking affidavits. 15. I, accordingly, set aside the order of the courts below and direct the Magistrate to decide whether the acts complained of are so integrally connected with the performance of the official duties, by the accused persons as to be inseparable from them as to require sanction for their prosecution under section 197 of the Code. He shall come to an independent conclusion of his own uninfluenced by any of the observations made above.Revision accepted. *******