C. P. SEN, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application under Section 482 of the Code of criminal Procedure for quashing the prosecution of the applicant under Section 166,i. P. C. on the complaint of the non-applicaat No. 2. ( 2 ) THE applicant is an Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies which is a gazetted post and he is only removeable by the State Government. At the relevant time the was posted at Damoh and was appointed Returning Officer for holding election of the Citizen Co-operative Bank Ltd. Damoh by the registrar of Co-operative Societies under Rule 41 (26) framed under the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for brevity hereinafter called the Act) which is a registered society under the Act. The elections were duly held under the supervision of the applicant and it appears that the non-applicant No. 2 lost the election held on 8-6-1979. Thereafter the present complaint has been filed by the non-applicant No. 2, alleging serious irregularities and breach of the provisions of the Act and Rules by the applicant in conducting the election so that one Kunjbehari Guru got elected who promised promotion to the applicant and thereby injury was caused to the non-applicant. Some of the irregularities are quoted in the impugned order, i. e. , (1) Though Kunjbihari Guru was not a member yet his name was included in the voters list in contravention of Section 19 (2) of the Act; (2) Names of eligible members were illegally removed from the voters list; (3) Names of 11 other voters were missing from the voters list due to typing error but inspite of an objection being raised by those voters the list was not corrected thereby there was violation of rule 23 (c); (4) Names of 28 voters were deleted without intimation to the voters from the voters list thereby they were deprived of their right of voting in contravention of Rule 23 (e); (5) Without notice to the five members, their memberships were terminated violating Rule 23 (2) (1) (2); (6) The voters list was not published by the applicant but the work was entrusted to the Vice Chairman and Manager of the Society in contravention of Rule 23 (g) ; and (7) Although 500 members were in the defaulters list, still they were permitted to vote contravening Section 50 (a ). The complaint has been registered and process issued to the applicant. Subsequently charges were framed against the applicant inspite of the objection that there is no sanction from the State Government for his prosecution under section 197 of the Code and also there is no sanction as required under Section 76 (1) of the Act. It was contended that the alleged irregularities and breaches being committed by the applicant while acting or purporting to act in the di charge of his official duty, no cognizance could be taken without the sanction of the State Government or the Registrar of Co-operative Societies ( 3 ) A revision was preferred before the Sessions Judge who dismissed the same holding that since the Returning Officer could be even a private person nominated by the Registrar and, therefore, the applicant was acting in a different capacity while acting as such and not in his official capacity and so no sanction under Section 197 of the Code is necessary, since no prosecution has been launched under the Act, it was not necessary to take any sanction from the registrar under Section 76 (1) and whether the applicant is protected under Section 88 of the Act, having acted in good faith, is a question to be decided after recording evidence and further the trial Magistrate erred in not mentioning Section 166, T. P. C. in the charge framed. ( 4 ) AFTER having heard the parties and perused the record, I am of the opinion that the prosecution of the applicant has to be quashed in the absence of a sanction under Section 197 of the Code. It is true that since there is no prosecution under Section 74 of the Act it is not necessary to take sanction from the Registrar under Section 76 (1) of the Act. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that since the contraventions alleged are of the provisions of the Act and the Rules, the prosecution can only be under Section 74 of the Act. This contention is fortified by the commentary in the Law of crimes by Rattanlal, 22nd Edition that if the direction of law given by the special Act is violated, the punishment will be under that Act. This contention is fortified by the commentary in the Law of crimes by Rattanlal, 22nd Edition that if the direction of law given by the special Act is violated, the punishment will be under that Act. But it seems that in view of Section 27 of the M. P. General Clauses Act if the offence is committed under two separate enactments, the prosecution can be under either of the enactments. So there is no merit in this contention. It may be mentioned here that under Rule 41 (26) the Registrar was empowered to appoint Returning officers for conducting elections under the Act. Under the original sub-rule (26)even a private person could be appointed as Returning Officer in respect of certain categories of societies but the position has been changed by the amended sub-rule (26) under which the Returning Officer can only be a public servant starting from the rank of Revenue Inspectors to Deputy Collectors and Assistant registrars of Co-operative Societies. Therefore, a Returning Officer can only be a public servant. So far as the Citizen Bank is concerned, the Returning officer can only be the Assistant Registrar, who is a gazetted officer of the state Government. Therefore, while acting as a Returning Officer, the Assistant registrar discharges his duties in his official capacity. In the present case, there can be no doubt that the breaches and irregularities alleged were committed by the applicant while acting or purporting to act as a public servant in discharge of his official duty. ( 5 ) THE Supreme Court in Ramayya v. State of Bombay [ air 1955 SC 287 ] has held"if Section 197, Cr. P. C. is construed too narrowly it can never be applied, for course it is no part of an official's duty to commit an offence and never can be. But it is not the duty which the courts have to examine so much as the act, because an official act can be performed in the discharge of official duty as well as in dereliction of it. ' similarly in Matajog Dobey v. H. C. Bhari [ air 1956 SC 44 ], the Supreme court held "the offence alleged to have been committed must have something to do, or must be related in some manner, with the discharge of official duty. ' similarly in Matajog Dobey v. H. C. Bhari [ air 1956 SC 44 ], the Supreme court held "the offence alleged to have been committed must have something to do, or must be related in some manner, with the discharge of official duty. No question of sanction can arise under Section 197, unless the act complained of is an offence ; the only point to determine is whether it was committed in the discharge of official duty. There must be a reasonable connection between the act and the official duty. " ( 6 ) AN official act can be performed in discharge of official duty as well as in dereliction of it. Since the act complained of directly concerned with the official duties of the applicant, it could be said that these acts were done by virtue of his office and so sanction is necessary. The Decision of the bombay High Court in Gulam Miya v. Emperor [air 1930 Bom. 487] is clearly distinguishable. There an organizer of Co-operative societies was appointed a liquidator and he misappropriated certain sum of money as a liquidator. It was held that the posts of the organizer and that of the liquidator being quite distinct, no sanction under Section 197 is required for the prosecution of the liquidator on a charge of misappropriation, since the organizer could be removed only by the Government but the liquidator was removeable by the registrar and the two posts were quite distinct and separate. Hero the position is different. The applicant by virtue of his office as Assistant Registrar is required to conduct the election as Returning Officer. A division bench of the bombay High Court in Capt. Shankarrao v. Burjor D. Engineer [air 1962 sc 198] has held that the act includes illegal omissions of the public servant which arise in the discharge of his official duty and the prosecution was incompetent in the absence of a sanction under Section 197 of the Code. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY the applications is allowed. The charge framed against the applicant is quashed and the complaint is dismissed. The applicant is discharged from the case. Applications allowed. .