S. GANGULY, J. ( 1 ) BY this revisional application the accused petitioner wants the court to quash the proceeding in G. R. Case No. 438 of 1976 under section 420/109 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of the Learned S. D. J. M. , at Siliguri. ( 2 ) IT appears that one A. K. Das placed an order for 44 chests of tea with the complainants firm at Siliguri on payment of Rs. 50 1/- as advance for delivers of the said tea at Calcutta. The relevant R. R. and the bills were sent by registered post in the name of United Commercial Bank; Chandnichowk Branch, Calcutta under the area of Princep Street Post Office. The registered envelop, however, came back to the complainants firm with the endorsement not found. But the R. R. and the bills contained therein were found missing. On enquiry it was learnt that the said Mr. A. K. Das had taken delivery of the consignment. On information lodged, the Police started investigation, during which it came to light that the aforementioned Mr. A. K. Das and the present petitioner who happens to be his own brother and is a postman at Princep Street Post Office being in league with his brother removed the R. R. and bills from the registered envelop with the help of which his brother, the aforementioned Mr. A. K. Das took delivery of the tea in question from he carrier without making any payment to the Bank. On the above facts the Investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet under section 420 I. P. C. against the said Mr. A. K. Das and under section 109 I. P. C. against the present petitioner for abetment. ( 3 ) IT is urged by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner being a public servant in the employ of the Central Government, no cognizance can be taken of the offence allegedly committed by him by the learned Magistrate without prior sanction from the Central Government as per the provision of the section 197 Cr. P. C. ( 4 ) IT is certainly true that the petitioner is a public servant in the employ of the Central Government. But that fact all by itself will not bring the case of the petitioner under the ambit of section 197 of the Cr. P. C. ( 4 ) IT is certainly true that the petitioner is a public servant in the employ of the Central Government. But that fact all by itself will not bring the case of the petitioner under the ambit of section 197 of the Cr. P. C. From the section itself it becomes quite clear that there are two conditions both of which must be satisfied before the provisions of the section can be invoked. ( 5 ) THE first condition is that the public servant must be one who is removable from his office either by the Central or the State Government depending upon whether he is a Central or a State Government employee. The terms Central and State Government presumably mean the President of India and the Government of the States respectively in whom the executive powers of the Union and the States lie vested under the provisions of Article 53 and Article 154 of the Constitution of India. ( 6 ) THE petitioner, an employee of the postal department must be removable from his office by his appointing authority in that department. The first condition is Dot, therefore, fulfilled in this case. ( 7 ) THE second condition for getting protection under 197 Cr. P. C. is that the public servant concerned must have committed the alleged offence while (1) acting in the discharge of his official duty i. e. while doing his official duty or while (2) purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty i. e. while acting intending it to seem to others that he was doing his official duty. The law is well settled that a public servant may be said to commit an offence while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty when the act comprising the offence is reasonably and integrally connected with his official duty to such an extent that if challenged he could lay a reasonable but not a pretended or fanciful claim that he did it in the course of the performance of his official duty; Gill vs. Emperor1, Amrik vs. Pepsu2, Matajog vs. H. C. Bhari3, quoted with approval in Balbir vs. D. N. Kadian4. There will be protection for acts done not only in honest pursuance of official duty though in excess of the needs or requirements of the situation or under a mistaken belief as to the existence of such duty or even done negligently, Heriram5 Provakar vs. Sinary6, Matojog vs. B. C. Bhari (supra) but also where the official act has been performed in dereliction of official duty of the public servant. ( 8 ) THE accused petitioner in the present case cannot very well claim that the act alluded to him by the prosecution viz, taking the bills and R. R. out of the registered cover for abetting the offence allegedly committed by his brother the aforementioned A. K. Das was within the scope of his official duty as a postman entrusted with delivering registered letters to the addresses. Thus the second condition also remains unfulfilled in his case. ( 9 ) THE petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to get the protection of section 197 Cr. P. C. for the reasons stated above. ( 10 ) IT is urged next by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner being a public servant, the offence allegedly committed by him i. e. abetment of the offence of cheating come under clause 3 read with clause 8 of the schedule to the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949 and that as such under the provisions of the clause 4 of the said Act the petitioner can he tried only in a Special Court. ( 11 ) CLAUSE 3 of the schedule to the aforementioned Act refers to an offence under section 417 or 420 I. P. C. committed by a public servant while purporting to act as such public servant. The language here is a bit different from the language of section 197 Cr. P. C. But the sprit of the decisions cited above may also be applied here. Opening the registered cover, taking away the bills and R. R. there form and handing them over to the other accused, could by no stretch of imagination be considered as acts within the scope of official duty of a postal peon entrusted with the delivery of registered covers which the petitioner was at the relevant time. It cannot be said, therefore, that the petitioner committed (he acts complained of in this case while purporting to act as a public servant. It cannot be said, therefore, that the petitioner committed (he acts complained of in this case while purporting to act as a public servant. ( 12 ) WE conclude, therefore, that the petitioner is not entitled to get the protection of section 197 Cr. P. C. and further that the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949 has no application to his case. ( 13 ) IN the circumstances, the petitioners revisional application must fail and the Rule must be discharged which I hereby do. Office to send back the lower court records at once. Revision fails