JUDGMENT : G.B. Patnaik, J. - Complainant is the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the order of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhanjanagar, directing the complainant to file the sanction order to prosecute opposite party No. 1, who is the Executive Officer of Bhanjanagar Notified Area Council, as required u/s 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he has preferred this revision. 2. The only question which requires to be answered in this revision is whether on the allegations made in the complaint petition, it can be said that the alleged act or omission had any reasonable nexus with the discharge of the official duty of opposite party No. 1 or not. 3. According to the complainant, he is a tenant in respect of a shop house bearing Market-stall No. 22 and the said shop house belongs to the Notified Area Council. Bhanjanagar. He received a letter from the Executive Officer. Notified Area Council alleging that he has sublet the house to one M. Shyamamurty which allegation the complainant denied. On 26-5-1982, all on a sudden at 8-00 a. m., the said Executive Officer along with other accused persons in the complaint case broke open the house and looted away articles worth Rs. 5,000/- including a cash of Rs. 250/- and for this the complainant had lodged the complaint before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate. On taking the initial statement of the complainant on 7-6-1982. the learned Magistrate was of the opinion that the matter should be enquired into u/s 202, Code of Criminal Procedure. In the enquiry u/s 202, three witnesses were examined on behalf of the complainant. The learned Magistrate passed an order on 25-8-1982 to the effect that since the Executive Officer is a Government servant, a sanction to prosecute him is necessary u/s 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and accordingly directed the complainant to file the sanction. On 7-9-1982, on behalf of the complainant, a petition was filed indicating that no sanction u/s 197 is necessary, but that application was rejected by the learned Magistrate by order dated 7-9-1982 and hence the present revision. 4. Mr. On 7-9-1982, on behalf of the complainant, a petition was filed indicating that no sanction u/s 197 is necessary, but that application was rejected by the learned Magistrate by order dated 7-9-1982 and hence the present revision. 4. Mr. Mahapatra, the learned Counsel appearing for the complainant-Petitioner, urges that the acts alleged against by no stretch of imagination can be considered to be a part of the official duty of the Executive Officer requiring previous sanction of the State Government to prosecute him and, therefore, the impugned order of the learned Magistrate is a nullity. Mr. Panigrahi, the learned Counsel appearing for opposite party No. 1, on the other hand, contends that in the facts and circumstances alleged in the complaint petition it must be held that the opposite party was discharging his official duty as Executive Officer and at the most, the allegations may amount to an act in excess of the authority of the Executive Officer but must be held to be one in discharge of his official duty and therefore, prior sanction u/s 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is necessary and the learned Magistrate is fully justified in refusing to take cognisance without a sanction as contemplated in Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been engrafted in the Code as a protection to public servants against vexatious proceedings and to secure a considered opinion of a superior authority before a prosecution is launched against a public servant. But to attract the said provision, it must be established that the person against whom allegations have been made is a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government and tbe alleged offence committed by him must have been committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. So far as the present case is concerned there is no manner of doubt that opposite party No. 1 is a public servant not removable from his office save by or with sanction of the State Government, he being an officer of the Administrative Service. But the acts complained of against him cannot be held to be acts which were committed by him in the purported discharge of official duty. But the acts complained of against him cannot be held to be acts which were committed by him in the purported discharge of official duty. There must be a coherent nexus between the act complained of as an offence and the duty of the public servant, though it may be in excess of his exact duty. In the case of Dhannjay Ram Sharma Vs. M.S. Uppadaya and Others the Supreme Court considered a similar case and came to hold that commission of theft, misappropriation of properties and wrongful confinement of the complainant by accused persons who were in the employ of Northern Railway could not possibly be said to be in performance of their official duty or it could not be said that the accused persons were purporting to act in performance of their official duty. It was also observed in the said case that even if it is assumed that witnessing the search in the complainant's house was in performance of their official duty, yet the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused persons could have no direct connection with the act of witnessing the search. The mere fact that an opportunity to commit an offence is furnished by the official duty is not such a connection of the offence with the performance of such duty as to justify even remotely the view that the acts complained of are within the scope of their official duty. Mr. Panigrahi, the learned Counsel for opposite party No. 1, however, very much relies upon the decision of this Court in the case of Prana Krushna Swain Vs. Raghunath Singh and Others where this Court has observed that the allegations made in the complaint petition against the Additional Tahasildar indicate that the Additional Tahsildar had gone upon the land in discharge of his official duty to evict the complainant from the unauthorised occupation though he committed some excesses while discharging the said official duty. The observations made therein cannot have any application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. To my query, Mr. The observations made therein cannot have any application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. To my query, Mr. Panigrahi, counsel for opposite party No. 1, could not cite any provision either under the Orissa Municipal Act or the Rules framed thereunder which even remotely authorised the Executive Officer to break open the shop of the complainant in the premises belonging to the Notified Area Council which has been in occupation of the complainant as a tenant, excepting stating that the Executive Officer has the control over the property of the Notified Area Council. The learned Counsel even could not point out as to what official duty the Executive Officer was discharging by breaking open the lock and carrying away the articles from the premises in question. After giving my anxious consideration to the allegations in the complaint petition and keeping the law on the subject in view, I do not find any reasonable nexus between the acts complained of and the duty of the Executive Officer of the Notified Area Council in purported exercise of which it can be said that opposite party No. 1 committed the acts complained of. In that view of the matter, the conclusion of the learned Magistrate in his order dated 25-8-1982 must be held to be wholly erroneous and it must be held that prior action of the State Government u/s 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not necessary to prosecute the opposite parties. 6. In the result, therefore, the orders of the learned Magistrate dated 25-8-1982 and 7-9-1982 are quashed and the learned Magistrate is directed to proceed in accordance with law. This criminal revision is accordingly allowed. Final Result : Allowed