K. P. MOHAPATRA, J, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jharsuguda, holding that sanction for prosecution of the opposite parties was required under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (T Code for short) for an offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 2 ) IT is necessary to narrate a few facts. In connection with G. R. Case No. 289 of 1980, arising out of the Jharsuguda Police Station of which opposite party No. 1 was the Officer-In-Charge and opposite party No. 2 was an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, the petitioners, both brothers were produced in the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jharsuguda, on 8-4-1980. Both of them complained before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate that they were arrested on 4-4-1980 and were brought to the Jharsuguda Police Station. After their arrival, the opposite parties not only abused them in obscene language but also instigated the constables to assault them and themselves assaulted, both of them. The statements were recorded on solemn affirmation and the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate directed that a separate case be registered on the allegations referred to above. He also took steps for enquiry under. Section 202 of the Code. After conclusion of the enquiry, on 10-2-1981 he found absence of a prima facie case and recorded an order of dismissal under Section 203 of the Code. ( 3 ) BEING aggrieved by the order of dismissal referred to above, the petitioners filed a criminal revision in Samir Chandra Guha and anr. v. K. Pradhan and anr1. This Court obviously found a prima facie case and held that the order of dismissal dated 10-2-1981 was unsustainable. The criminal, revision was accordingly allowed and the case was remitted to the learned court below for reconsideration of the evidence on record so as to pass an order in accordance with law. In pursuance of this Courts direction as referred to above, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate reconsidered the materials available on record on 7-3-1984 and took congnizance of an offence under Section 323 read with, Section. 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the opposite parties and issued process. In pursuance of this Courts direction as referred to above, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate reconsidered the materials available on record on 7-3-1984 and took congnizance of an offence under Section 323 read with, Section. 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the opposite parties and issued process. The opposite parties entered appearance and on 18-10-1984 filed a petition raising an objection that being police officers they were public servants and the alleged offence, if any, had been committed while discharging public duties. Therefore, they could not be prosecuted without prior sanction of the State Government under Section 197 of the Code. Therefore, the prosecution was liable to be quashed. In support of their plea, they produced Home Departments Notification dated 24-12-1981 which is quoted below:home DEPARTMENT NOTIFICATION The 24th December, 1981 No. 61160-P. I. C.-1-47181-P.- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1973), the State Government do hereby direct that the provisions of sub-section (2) of the said section of the said Act shall apply to the police officers controlled under the Police Act, 1961 (5 of 1961) and to the officers appointed to the Orissa Special Armed Police udder the Orissa - Special Armed Police Act, 1946 (Orissa Act 7 of 1946 ). TI The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate after hearing both parties considered this aspect of the case and passed the impugned order where he seems to have taken the view that the opposite parties might have applied some force while arresting the petitioners of a charge of robbery and conducting them to the police station. Even if the force applied was in excess of what was necessary, it was done in discharge of public duties having a direct nexus with their arrest. Therefore, the opposite parties were immune from prosecution without prior sanction of the State Government under Section 197 of the Code. ( 4 ) AFTER hearing Mr. S. D. Das, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, and Mr. P. K. Misra-2, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parties, I am of the view which is expressed below that the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate did not take into consideration the offence of which he had earlier taken cognizance, but took: into account a case which was neither pleaded by the petitioners nor by the opposite parties. P. K. Misra-2, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parties, I am of the view which is expressed below that the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate did not take into consideration the offence of which he had earlier taken cognizance, but took: into account a case which was neither pleaded by the petitioners nor by the opposite parties. ( 5 ) LAW is well settled that there must be a reasonable connection between the act complained of and the discharge of official duty and the act must bear such relation to the duty that the accused can lay a reasonable but not a pretended and fanciful claim that he did it in course of performance of his duty. When allegations of a criminal offence have been made against public servant unconnected with the discharge of the public duties, the question of obtaining sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of the Code does not arise. For the aforesaid view, I am supported by a caters of decisions, in Prana Krushna Swain v. Raghunath Singh and ors. 2, Bishmu Prasad Mohapatra v. Ramesh Sahu3, ,abani Ch. Biswal v. State of Orissa and anr. 4 Jagannath Sadangi v. Smt. Sambari Sourani and anr. 5, Sarbeswar Behera. v. Rangadhar Mohanif6, and Jayaram Samal and anr. v. Santosh Kumar Satpathy7, to name a few in which several references have been made to the Supreme Court decisions on this point. ( 6 ) IT is now for consideration if in this particular case the act complained of was performed by the opposite parties in discharge of their public duties. It is pertinent to remember that the learned court below took cognizance of an offence of assault on the petitioners under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the opposite parties after their arrival at the police station at Jharsuguda and not while they were being conducted by one of them after arrest. So the sum and substance of the prosecution case is assault on the petitioners by the opposite parties - police officers at the Police Station. There is no material to show that the petitioners attempted to escape from the Police Station from custody and that they themselves used any force against the police officers. So the sum and substance of the prosecution case is assault on the petitioners by the opposite parties - police officers at the Police Station. There is no material to show that the petitioners attempted to escape from the Police Station from custody and that they themselves used any force against the police officers. That being the position, it was entirely unnecessary for the opposite parties being Police Officers to use force against the petitioners so as to assault them as had been alleged by them before the learned court below and recorded on solemn affirmation on 8-4-1980. It was no part of the duty of the police officers to assault persons inside the police station in due discharge of their public duties. On the other hand, courts have always viewed with seriousness assaults inside the Police Station which in many cases have led to death. On the facts of this case, the conclusion is inescapable that there was absolutely no nexus of the alleged occurence with the police officers discharge of public duties. Therefore, according to law, sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of the Code was wholly unnecessary. The learned court below, as already stated, took a wrong view of the facts and misapplied the law. ( 7 ) IN the result, the revision is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The case is remitted to the court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jharsuguda so as to proceed in accordance with law. The lower court records be despatched forthwith.