JUDGMENT : K.P. Mohapatra, J. - Petitioner No. 1 was the Officer-in-charge of Kantabanji Police Station and Petitioners 2 and 3 were Constables in the year 1985 they have challenged the order passed by the learned Judicia] Magistrate, Kantabanji, taking Cognizance of an offence punishable u/s 342, I. P. C, against them. 2. Facts-The opposite party was implicated in a case u/s 47 (f) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act. A warrant of arrest was issued against him in connection with that case and was sent to the Officer-in-charge of Kantabanji Police station for execution, In execution of the warrant, the opposite party was arrested on 1-9-1985 and was produced in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate on the next day . The case of the opposite party is that in connection with the excise case he surrendered in the Court and was released on bail on 16-2-1985. On the same day the warrant of arrest which had earlier been issued was recalled. Despite the above fact he was arrested by the Petitioners and was illegally detained in the police station. He filed a petition of complaint making the above allegations p. m. 2-9-1985 and on that day his initial statement was recorded on oath. He stated that he was arrested by Petitioners 2 and 3 and was brought to the police station hand cuffed. He told the police constables of his release on bail; but to no effect. When he was brought to the police station he similarly intimated the Sub-Inspector (Petitioner No. 1) that he had earlier been released on bail, but it fell on deaf ears. He therefore, complained that the arrest was illegal and he was put to wrongful confinement by the Petitioners. 3. The learned Judicial Magistrate in the impugned order recorded that in the excise case the Petitioner was arrested but, on surrender, he was released on bail on 16-2-1985. On the same day the warrant of arrest which bad earlier been issued was recalled, and the order was received at the police station on 19-2-1985. Therefore, the arrest of the Petitioner on 1-9-1985 and his detention at the police station amounted to wrongful confinement within the meaning, of Section 342, I.P.C. Accordingly he took cognisance of the offence and issued processes. Therefore, the arrest of the Petitioner on 1-9-1985 and his detention at the police station amounted to wrongful confinement within the meaning, of Section 342, I.P.C. Accordingly he took cognisance of the offence and issued processes. Be it stated that before taking cognizance of the case he did not make an enquiry u/s 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it is not known, how he gathered the facts relating to surrender of the opposite party on 16-2-1985, recall of the warrant of arrest on the same day and its receipt at the police station on 19-2-1985 because, no such materials are available in the lower Court records. 4. Mr. D. K. Misra, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners urged that the arrest was in discharge of their official duties in accordance with the warrant of arrest and even though it might have been wrong yet, without obtaining sanction for the prosecution u/s 197, Cr.P. C. from the government or the appropriate authority cognisance of the offence should not have been taken. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on Sarat alias Saroj Kumar Sahu and Others Vs. Alio Mallik, . 5. It is not disputed that on the basis of the warrant of arrest which had been issued from the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate Kantabanji, in an excise case at the instance of the Sub-Inspector (Petitioner No. 1), the two police constables bad arrested the opposite party on 1-9-1985 and after detaining him in the police station for the night he was produced in the Court next morning. The above act was done in discharge of their official duties at public servants. It was not therefore, a private action of forcible confinement of the opposite party at the police station. By virtue of the notification No. 61160-PIC1-47/81-P, dated 24-12-1981 issued by the government according to the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 197 the Petitioners are protected in so far as in making the arrest they acted in discharge of their official duties and so the Court could not take cognisance of the offence u/s 342, I.P.C. without sanction of prosecution by the government or the appropriate authority u/s 197. Manifestly there was no sanction for the prosecution u/s 197, Code of Criminal Procedure and so the impugned order of cognizance of the offence u/s 342, I. P.C. against the Petitioners was patently illegal and so cannot be supported. 6. In the result, the criminal misc. is allowed and the impugned order dated 2-9-1985 is quashed. Final Result : Allowed