N. D. VENKATESH, J. ( 1 ) ON 1-6-1979 the petitioner filed a complaint against Respondents 1 to 5 herein in Criminal Case No. 773/79 on the file of the Additional Munsiff and j. M. F. C. , Puttur, D K. , complaining that the said persons all police Officials then serving in puttur, Circle-had assaulted him more than once, caused him injuries, and were thereby liable to be proceeded against. ( 2 ) HAVING been issued with process for alleged offences under ss. 143, 342, 323, 324 and 506 read with S. 149 of the Indian Penal code the accused raised the plea that the acts alleged against them come within the mischief of S. 170 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (the Act) that previous sanction to prosecute them was required; that the complainant not having obtained any such sanction, the Court below could not have taken cognizance of the offences; and that therefore the prosecution should be dropped against them. They made such pleas during the course of the trial and when some of the witnesses had been examined. ( 3 ) THE court below felt that the question raised on behalf of the accused, going as it did to its very jurisdiction to proceed with the matter should be heard immedrately and took up that plea for consider ation in the light of the facts then made available. Hearing both sides and, by its order dt 22-4-1981, in the light of the facts available, came to the conclusion that the allegations made in the complaint were covered by S. 170 of the Act and that previous sanction of the Government was required to prosecute the accused and that there being no such sanction the prosecution was bad, and taking this view dismissed the complaint. That order is under challenge in this revision. ( 4 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner, challenging the order, submitted that there was no nexus at all between the acts complained of and the duty, admitting that the officials were performing their duty, imposed by law on the accused. It is his case that the court below, not properly construing S. 170 of the Act had commilted an error in dismissing the complaint. ( 5 ) AS stated above, all these respondents were police officials. The facts alleged are said to have taken place within their jurisdiction. It is his case that the court below, not properly construing S. 170 of the Act had commilted an error in dismissing the complaint. ( 5 ) AS stated above, all these respondents were police officials. The facts alleged are said to have taken place within their jurisdiction. Their contention is that they were investigating into a case against the complainant, that they wanted his presence at the station, that he had refused to comply with their request to visit the station; that when they wanted to take him to the station not merely he had resisted their attempt but entered into a scuffle; and that to cover up this Act of his he had filed this false complaint. ( 6 ) S. 170 of the Act prohibits courts from entertaining any prosecution or suit against a police Officer except with the previous sanction of the Government for any"act done under colour or in excess of any such duty or authority as aforesaid, or wherein it shall appear to the court that the offence or wrong if committed or done was of the character aforesaid". ( 7 ) AN analogous provision, S. 161 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in State of Malarushtra v. Nurlar Pan ( AIR 1966 SC 1783 ). A Police Constable, Narhar Rao, having been tried by the Special judge, Ankola, had been convicted and sentenced for offences under S. 161 of IPC and S 5 (2) read with s. 5 (1) (b) of the Prevention of corruption Act on the allegation that he had taken some bribe. Narhar Rao challenged that order in the Bombay High Court contending, inter-alia, that his prosecution was barred under sub-sec. (1) of S. 161 of the Bombay Police Act and, therefore, had to be set aside. The Bombay high Court, upholding that contention, allowed his appeal. Being aggrieved the State of Maharashtra preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court. Narhar Rao challenged that order in the Bombay High Court contending, inter-alia, that his prosecution was barred under sub-sec. (1) of S. 161 of the Bombay Police Act and, therefore, had to be set aside. The Bombay high Court, upholding that contention, allowed his appeal. Being aggrieved the State of Maharashtra preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court. S. 161 (1) of the Bombay Police act read thus :"s. 161 (1) In any case of alleged offence by the Revenue Commissioner, the Commissioner, a Magisstrate, Police Officer, or other person, or ot a wrong alleged to have been done by such Revenue commisioner, Commissioner, a magistrate, Police Officer, or other person, by any act done under colour or in excess of any such duty or authority as aforesaid, or wherein, it shall appear to the court that the offence or wrong it committed or done was of the character aforesaid, the prosecution or suit shall not be entertained, or shall be dismissed, if instituted, more than six months after the date of the Act complained of". (Extracted from Narhar Rao's case ). Except with this difference that under the Bombay Police Act a case of the type coming within the mischief of sub-sec. (!) of S. 161 had to be launchsd within six months and that under sub-sec. (1) of S. 170 of Karnataka Police Act previous sanction of the Government was required to so prosecute, in all other respects the two provisions are quite similar. I may usefully extract sub-sec. (1) of S. 170 of the act. "170. Suits or prosecutions in respect of acts done under colour of duty as aforesaid not to be entertained without sanction of Government - (1) In any case of alleged pffence by the commissioner, a Magistrate, Police Officer or Reserve Police officer or other person, or of a wrong alleged to have been done by such commissioner, Magistrate, Police officer or Reserve Police Officer or other person, by any act done under colour or in excess of any such duty or authority as aforesaid, or wherein it shall appear to the court that the offence or wrong it committed or done was of the character aforesaid, the prosecution or suit shall not be entertained except with the previous sanction of the Government. "explaining the scope of S. 161 (1) of the Bombay Police Act the Supreme Court observe in Narhar Rao's case thus :"it is manifest that in order that the accused person against whom a prosecution has been launched may get the benefit of six months period of limitation under the section, it must appear to the Court (1) that the offence was committed under colour of any duty imposed or any authority conferred by any provisions of the Bombay Police Act or any other law for the time being in force, or (2) that the act was done in excess of any such duty or authority as aforesaid. The question arising in this case, therefore, is whether the alleged act of the respondent in accepting bribe was an act done under colour of the duty imposed or the authority conferred on the respondent by any provision of law or in excess of any such duty or authority as aforesaid. In examining this question it is necessary, in the first place, to ascertain what act is complained of and then to see if there is any provision of the Bombay police Act or any other law under which it may be said to have been done or purported to have been done. In this connection it is important to remember that an act is not done under colour of an offence merely because the point of time at which it is done coincides with the point of time the accused is invested with the powers or duty of the Officer. To be able to say that an act was done under the colour of an office one must discover a reasonable connection between the Act alleged and the duty or authority imposed on the accused by the Bombay Police Act or other statutory enactment. Unless there is a reasonable connection between the act complained of and the powers and the duties of the office, it is difficult to say that the act was done by the accused officer under the colour of his office. For example, if a police officer is prosecuted for an offence under s. 323 of the Indian Penal Code said to have been committed in making an arrest, the prosecution must fail unless commenced within six months of the act complained of, as required by S. 161 (1) of the bombay Police Act. For example, if a police officer is prosecuted for an offence under s. 323 of the Indian Penal Code said to have been committed in making an arrest, the prosecution must fail unless commenced within six months of the act complained of, as required by S. 161 (1) of the bombay Police Act. Again, if the prosecution is for an offence under s. 304 Indian Penal Code said to have been committed in the process of dispersing an unlawful assembly under S. t28 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the limitation provided under S. 161 (1) of the Bombay police Act will apply. Similarly, if the prosecution is for an offence under S. 341 of the Indian Penal code said to have been committed by the act of closing a street or passage in or near which a fire is burning in exercise of the powers under S. 152 of the Criminal Procedure Code or for an offence under s. 426 of the Indian Penal Code, said to have been committed by the pulling down of a house for the purpose of extinguishing a fire, the prosecution must fail unless brought within the period prescribed under S. 161 (I) of the Bombay police Act. " (paras 3 and 4) the observations in Narahar Rao's case at para-4 may carefully be noted. The Court observes that if a police officer is prosecuted for an offence under S. 323 I P. C. , and if it comes on record that that officer at that time was attempting to arrest the complainant the prosecution has to fall unless it is filed within the time stipulated under sub-Sec. (1) of S. 161 of the Bombay Police Act. Such an act done by police officer can be said to have been done under a colour of an office or in excess of his duty or atleast it was of the character aforesaid. ( 8 ) LET us examine the facts of this case in the light of what is stated above. In his deposition dt. 11-2-81 given in the court below the complainant Ramesh (pw. ( 8 ) LET us examine the facts of this case in the light of what is stated above. In his deposition dt. 11-2-81 given in the court below the complainant Ramesh (pw. 1) says that the 4th and the 5th accused, who had met bin in the bus stand at 3 p. m. , had asked him to accompany them to the Police Station ; that he had refused to go there stating that he had not committed any wrong : that they (A-4 and A-5) had persisted that he should accompany them, that they had dragged him holding his hands and had assaulted him. At that time a-2 Lavakumar is said to have come there and that he too is said to have assaulted him. Thereafter those police officials are said to have taken him in a jeep to the police station and locked him up. It is his CMC that subsequently they had taken him to a doctor. The other accused, according to him, who had come there, had also assaulted him. It is his further case that, having detained him in the police station during that night, they had again assaulted him. ( 9 ) THE complainant has been cross-examined. He has admitted about his having applied to the Government for sanction to prosecute the accused and the Government refusing to do so. He also admits about these police officials having told him about there being a complaint against him by one Vasappa Gowda alleging assault. His further answers to the questions put to him by the crossexamining Counsel be noted :"the verbal altercations between me and the Constable went on. After that there was scuffling taken place between me and A 4 and A-5. Due to the scuffling I fell on the ground. 1 do not know who assaulted police constable A-4 and a-5. . . . . . . . . . . When the scuffling was going on A-2 came there. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-4 and A-5 were in Uniform at the time of the incident. Prior to the incident in another accident I sustained some injuries. . . . . . . . . . . . ". . When the scuffling was going on A-2 came there. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-4 and A-5 were in Uniform at the time of the incident. Prior to the incident in another accident I sustained some injuries. . . . . . . . . . . . ". It is clear from this evidence and the other facts placed on record that these police officials wanted his presence at the station in connection with a complaint filed against him he had refused to go with them, had resisted their attempts to take him to the station, and that in that process a scuffle also had taken place and he might have sustained some injuries. This case is similar to the cases referred to by the Supreme court in Narhar Rao's case by way of illustrations at para 4 of its judgment. I am, therefore, of the view that this case is clearly covered by sub-sec. (1) of S. 170 of the Act and required previous sanction of the government. There being no such sanction the Court below has rightly dismissed the complaint'of the petitioner. ( 10 ) ACCORDINGLY, for the reasons stated above, there being no merit in this revision it is dismissed. --- *** --- .