K. N. SHUKIA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision by the complainant is directed against the order dated 1-3-1983 passed by Session Judge, Rajnandgaon in Criminal Revision No. 75 of 1982 allowing the revision filed by respondents to 3 against the order dated 7-8-1982 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajnandgaon rejecting the application of respondents 1 to 3 under Section 197 (2) (3) Code of Criminal Procedure and taking cognizance of offences against these respondents under section 166, 167 and 506-B of the Indian Penal Code. ( 2 ) MATERIAL facts are as follows: Respondents 1 to 3 in this revision petition are police officers of the rank of sub-inspectors posted at police station Rajnandgaon. Petitioner Kailash Chand. fain filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajnandgaon alleging that on 18-9-1981 Respondents 1 to 3 accompanied by a force of six-seven constables entered his residential house and hurled filthy and obscene abuses on him. Respondents 1 and 2 whipped out their pistols and threatened to shoot the petitioner and his son. It was also alleged that respondents 1 to 3 beat the petitioner and his son with fists and after wrongfully arresting them took them to the police station. It was further alleged that these respondents prepared a false document and showed arrest of the petitioner under sections 186, 332 and 506 I. P. C. ( 3 ) LEARNED Chief Judicial Magistrate directed Station House Officer, Rajnandgaon to send a report on the complaint. Report was not received on two hearings and, therefore, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate proceeded to examine the complainant under Section 200 Cr. P. C. On the next date or hearing i. e. 12-1-1981 report with annexures was filed by Station House Officer, Police Station, Rajnandgaon. After perusing the material on record learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of offences under sections 166, 167 and 506-B of the Indian Penal Code against respondents 1 to 3 and directed issuance of bailable warrants against them. After perusing the material on record learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of offences under sections 166, 167 and 506-B of the Indian Penal Code against respondents 1 to 3 and directed issuance of bailable warrants against them. ( 4 ) ON appearance respondents 1 to 3 filed an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajnandgaon, wherein they raised the question of necessity of sanction under section 197 (2) Criminal Procedure Code and prayed that since the alleged acts were committed by them while acting in the discharge of their official duties, cognizance of the offences under section 166, 167 and 506-B I. P. C. could not be taken without obtaining sanction from the State Government. They claimed that the proceedings be dropped and they be discharged. ( 5 ) DOCUMENTS were filed by respondents 1 to 3 to show that on the date in question they had entered the house of the petitioner under a, warrant for search and seizure when they were obstructed by the petitioner and others from performing their duties. They produced the copy of challan filed against the petitioner for offences under sections 186, 332 and 506 I. P. C. ( 6 ) THE Chief Judicial Magistrate vide his order dated 7-8-1982 held that at that stage there was insufficient material before him for recording any finding whether sanction was necessary under section 197 Criminal Procedure Code for taking cognizance of the various offences alleged in the complaint against respondents 1 to 3. According to him the question of sanction could be decided only after recording of evidence. Impliedly he rejected the application for quashing the proceedings and discharging the respondents. ( 7 ) RESPONDENTS 1 to 3 filed revision against the order dated 7-8-1982 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision, reversed the order passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and dismissed the complaint for want of valid sanction for the prosecution of respondents 1 to 3 in view of the requirement of sanction under section 197 Criminal Procedure Code. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner challenged the order passed by learned Sessions Judge on two counts. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner challenged the order passed by learned Sessions Judge on two counts. Be contended that sanction of the State Government for prosecution of respondents 1 to 3 under section 197 Criminal Procedure Code was not necessary because the provisions contained in section 197 (3) Criminal Procedure Code was not applicable to these respondents. Secondly the material on record did not show that respondents 1 to 3 had committed the alleged offences while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their official duties. ( 9 ) SUB section (3) of section 197 provides that provisions of sub-section (2) shall apply to such class or category of the members of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order as may be specified in a notification by the State Government. Sub-section (2) prohibits the court from taking cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed by any member of the Armed forces while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. The effect of these provisions is that in respect of forces specified in sub-section (2) of sub-section (3) no cognizance of any offence can be taken which is committed by a member of such forces while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. The protection which was earlier available under section 197 (1) Criminal Procedure Code only to such public servant who was not removable except by or with the sanction of the Government is extended to members of the specified forces even though they are removable from their office without the sanction of the Government. ( 10 ) GOVERNMENT of Madhya Pradesh published a Notification No. 1799-II-B- (III) dated 14th May, 1981 which is as follows: in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (3) of section 197 of the Code of, Criminal Procedure, 1973 (No. 2 of 1974) , the State Government hereby directs that the provisions of sub-section (2) of the said section shall apply to the members of class III and class IV of the Madhya Pradesh Police Force and the Madhya Pradesh Special Armed Force. Apparently members of class III and class IV of the M. P. Police Force and M. P. Special Armed Forces were brought under the protective umbrella of sub section (2), of section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, sought to challenge this notification by contending that it was ultra-vires sub-section (3) of section 197 because sub section (3) refer only to such forces which are charged with maintenance of public order only and not to any other class of forces including the police force in general. According to learned counsel the term maintenance of public order in sub section (3) was confined to the provisions of chapter X of the Code of Criminal Procedure and sanction was required under section 197 only in respect of a member of a force which acts within the provisions of sections 129 to 144 of the Code. ( 11 ) THIS contention cannot be accepted. Section 132 of the code specifically provides for bar of prosecution against any person for any act purporting to be done under sections 129 to 131 except with the sanction of the concerned Government. The legislature obviously could not intend duplication of this provision in section 197 (2) (3) of the Code. Sub-section (3) empowers the State Government to notify such class of the members of the forces which is charged with the maintenance of public order for affording protection to it against prosecution without sanction. It is for the state Government to determine which class of forces should be specified in such a notification. The police force is obviously charged under the various enactments including the Police Manual with the maintenance of public order though all the members may not be deployed for the said purpose, all the time. I, therefore, hold that the notification issued by the State Government fully covers the forces mentioned therein i. e. , members of class III and class IV of the Madhya Pradesh Police Forces and Madhya Pradesh Special Armed Forces for purposes of requirement of sanction for taking cognizance of an offence against a member of such forces. I, therefore, hold that the notification issued by the State Government fully covers the forces mentioned therein i. e. , members of class III and class IV of the Madhya Pradesh Police Forces and Madhya Pradesh Special Armed Forces for purposes of requirement of sanction for taking cognizance of an offence against a member of such forces. ( 12 ) NEXT question is whether in view of the material on record no cognizance of the offences under sections 166, 167 and 506-B I. P. C. could be taken by the learned Magistrate without the sanction of th4 State Government in view of the requirement under section 197 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The scope and ambit of section 197 (1) have been the subject matter of several decisions of different High Courts and the Supreme Court. In Amrik Singh v. State of Pepsu their Lord ships of the Supreme Court avoided the two extreme views about the application of section 197 (1) Criminal Procedure Code and observed as follows: if the acts complained of are so integrally connected with the duties attaching to the office as to be inseparable from them, then sanction under section 197 (1) would be necessary but if there was no necessary connection between them and the performance of those duties, the official status furnishing only the occasion or opportunity for the acts, then no sanction would be required. T ( 13 ) IN Amrik Singhs case which was under section 409 I. P. C. it was noticed by the court that prima facie the amount said to be misappropriated had actually been paid by the accused to the persons entitled to it, And therefore, the act of the accused fell within the scope of section 197 (I) of the Code. ( 14 ) IN Pukhraj v. State of Rajasthan and another referring to its earlier decision in Mata-jog Dobey v. H. C. Bhari the court held a follows :-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 reasonable but not a pretended or fanciful claim, that he did it in the course of the performance of his duty. Significantly, in Pukhraj's case the Supreme Court further observed that mere fact that the accused- proposed to raise a defence of the act having purported to be done in exercise of duty will not in itself be sufficient to justify the case being thrown out for want of sanction. Reference was made to Sarjoo Pd. v. King Emperor. the Supreme Court observed further: Facts subsequently coming to light during the course of the judicial enquiry or during the course of the prosecution evidence at the trial may establish the necessity for sanction. Whether or not sanction is necessary will depend from stage to stage. Necessity may reveal itself in the course - of the progress of the case. In the case of Pukhraj where the Post Master General had kicked the complainant and abused him when the complainant was submitting his representation for cancellation of his transfer, it was held that the act of such public servant could not be said to - have been done in the purported exercise of his duty. ( 15 ) THE Supreme Court in Manohar Nath Kaul v. State of Jammu and Kashmir summed up the case law upto date on the point and reiterated the distinction between an offence committed by a public servant while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty and the official status furnishing only the occasion or opportunity for the commission of the offence. In Manohar Nath Kaul's case it was held that the act of cheating by a public servant was not such as would fall within the ambit of section 197 (1) Cr. P. C. ( 16 ) IN the instant case it is yet to be examined and proved whether respondents 1 to 3 had gone to the house of the complainant under a valid warrant for search and seizure and whether they were actually doing an official duty, when the alleged offences were committed. The question of sanction will arise only on proof of these pre-requisites. The learned Magistrate was, therefore, right in holding that the objection taken by the respondents 1 to 3 was premature. He did not reject it outright but only deferred its consideration. Learned Sessions Judge, therefore, erred in holding that the complainant was liable to be thrown out at the threshold as there was no sanction. The learned Magistrate was, therefore, right in holding that the objection taken by the respondents 1 to 3 was premature. He did not reject it outright but only deferred its consideration. Learned Sessions Judge, therefore, erred in holding that the complainant was liable to be thrown out at the threshold as there was no sanction. ( 17 ) THE impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge, therefore, cannot be sustained. It may however, be clarified that the learned - trial magistrate could not have taken cognizance of offences under sections 166 and 167 IPC without sanction even on the material which was already on record. This was fairly conceded by learned counsel for the petitioner. However, no sanction at this stage was necessary under section 197 (1) of this code for taking cognizance of the offence under section 506-B IPC. The matter, as already observed, will still be open during enquiry even in respect of the offence under section 506-B IPC. ( 18 ) IN view of this discussion, the order passed by learned Sessions Judge is set aside and the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is restored to the extent that no sanction at that stage was necessary for taking cognizance of an offence under section 506- B, IPC. Cognizance of the offence under sections 166 and 167 I. P. C. Without sanction, however, has to be quashed. ( 19 ) THE record of the case be sent back to the trial Magistrate for further proceedings forthwith. The parties shall appeal before the trial Magistrate on 23rd April, 1984. Application partly allowed .