JUDGMENT : J.M. Mahapatra, J. - The revision is directed against the taking of cognisance by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jeypore, Under Sections 341, 342, 32J, 294/506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the complainant, opposite-party No. 1, was that at the material time he was working as a Booking Clerk in Bidyadhar Talkies, Jeypore. On 18-1-1987 at about 9. 30 P. M, while he was proceeding towards Bidyadhar Talkies for work, he was called by petitioner No. 3 to the police station saying that he was required by petitioner No. 1, the Officer-in-charge of the police station. Thereafter as the complainant went to the police station, petitioner No. 1 charged him as to why he did not permit his family members to get them inside the cinema hall and see the movie. Thereafter he suddenly dealt him two slaps and directed petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, S. I, of Police and Constable respectively attached to the police station to put him inside the police hazat. Thereafter the complainant was kept inside the police hazat for the night. Next morning he was released from the lock-up. On these allegations the complainant filed a complaint before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Migistrate, Jeypore, who held an enquiry u/s 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and considering the material on record, took cognisance against the three petitioners for of fences as indicated earlier. 3. Mr. Dhalasamanta, the learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners has challenged the impugned order of taking cognisance mainly on the ground of want of sanction as required u/s 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Mr. A N. Mishra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State, on the other hand, relying on a Bench decision of this Court in the case of Abani Ch. Biswal Vs. State of Orissa and Another, has contended that in the tacts and circumstances of the case no. prior sanction of the authority as required u/s 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Is required. It is submitted that as the acts alleged against the petitioners was not committed while acting or purported to act in discharge of their official duties, no sanction as required under law was necessary taking cognisance of the offence. 4. prior sanction of the authority as required u/s 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Is required. It is submitted that as the acts alleged against the petitioners was not committed while acting or purported to act in discharge of their official duties, no sanction as required under law was necessary taking cognisance of the offence. 4. in the Division Bench decision referred to above, several decisions of the Supreme Court were considered and it was held thus: "The cardinal principle is that there must be a reasonable connection between the act and the discharge of official duty and the act must - such relation to the duty that the accused could lay a reasonable but not a pretended or fanciful claim that he did it in the course of performance of his duty." In other words, this Court held that there must be a reasonable nexus between the act complained of and the discharge of official duty. Considering the facts of the present case in the legal perspective, discussed above, I find I find that on the materials on record no such nexus has been established. The alleged acts were such which were beyond the purview of the official duty of the petitioners. 5. Two decisions of the Supreme Court directly connected writ the issue are the case of AIR 1986 345 (SC) and the case of S. B. Safoa and Ors. v. M. S. Kochar, reported Us A. I. R. 1979 S. C 1941, the ratio in both the aforesaid decisions is that no sanction as required u/s of the Code of Criminal Procedure is necessary when the act complained of cannot he said to have been done by the accused in discharge of their official duties. 6. In the light of the foregoing discussions In the preceding paragraphs, 1 would hold that in the present case no sanction was necessary for taking cognisance. Even otherwise considering the materials on record, I am of the view that taking of cognisance was Justified. 7. In the result; therefore, the revision as dismissed being devoid of merits. Final Result : Dismissed