N. K. BATABYAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS Criminal Revision U/s. 401 read with Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. is directed against the order No. 20 dated 15. 9. 1992 passed by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (I), Portblairingrcaseno. 1144of1992, U/s. 500, I. P. C. rejecting the petition of revisionist for discharging him from the case. ( 2 ) THE revisionist is facing a criminal case filed against him by Animal Husbandary Employees Union of A and rjlslands through its President U/s. 500, I. P. C. L. d. Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (D, Port Blari has taken cognizance on the basis of the said complaint against the revisionist. The revisionist filed an application before the Ld. Judicial Magistrate stating that he should be discharged from the case for non-compliance with Section 197 (1) Cr. P. C. he being a Govt. servant. Another point which is taken in the petition is that the petitioner of complaint does not disclose who is the aggrieved person. ( 3 ) THE Ld. Magistrate by order No. 20 dated 15. 9. 1992 has been pleased to reject the application of the revisionist. ( 4 ) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order passed by the Ld. Magistrate, the revisionist has come before this Court alleging inter alia that the Ld. Magistrate acted illegally by taking cognizance of the case without sanction U/s. 197 of Cr. P. C. that the revisionist was on official duty while the alleged remarks were made by him to the Chief Secretary of the local Administration, that the alleged order of the Ld. Magistrate is against Public Policy enshrined U/s. 197 of Cr. P. C. protecting public servant from frivolous and harassing the prosecution. ( 5 ) THE revisional application has been stoutly contested by the O. P. No. 1 ( 6 ) THE only question which falls for consideration is whether there is any revisional error in the impugned order passed by the Ld. Magistrate. ( 7 ) U/s. 197 (1) of the Cr. ( 5 ) THE revisional application has been stoutly contested by the O. P. No. 1 ( 6 ) THE only question which falls for consideration is whether there is any revisional error in the impugned order passed by the Ld. Magistrate. ( 7 ) U/s. 197 (1) of the Cr. P. C. when a public servant not removable from his office, save by or with the sanction of the Government, is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence without the sanction of the Union or State Government as the case may be. In this instant case, there is no controversy about the fact that the revisionist at the material time was a Government servant. The centre of debate is whether the alleged criminal conduct of the revisionist was done in the discharge of his official duties. The Ld. Lawyers for both the sides in support of their respective contentions have referred to various reported decision in this connection. ( 8 ) THE words any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties excludes the acts constituting the offences which are commi4ed in personal and private capacity. But this cannot mean that the act which will constitute the offence must be within the official duty because no act of commission or omission can be official duties as also offence simultaneously. ( 9 ) IN the case reported in Matajog Dobey v. H. C. Bhari1, it was held that the offence alleged to have been committed must have been something to, or must be related in some manner, with the discharge of official duties. No question of sanction can arise under Section 197, Cr. P. C. unless the act complained of is an offence; the only point to determine is whether it was committed in the discharge of official duty. There must be a reasonable connection between the act and the official duty. It does not matter even if the act exceeds what is strictly necessary for the discharge of the duty, as this question will arise only at a later stage when the trial proceeds on the merits. There must be a reasonable connection between the act and the official duty. It does not matter even if the act exceeds what is strictly necessary for the discharge of the duty, as this question will arise only at a later stage when the trial proceeds on the merits. But what the Court must find out is whether the act and the official duty are so inter-related that one car postulate reasonably that it was done by the accused in the performing of the official duty, though possibly in excess of the needs and requirements of the situation. ( 10 ) THE Ld. Lawyer has cited another case in support of his contention; RR. Chari v. State of Uttar Pradesh2. In that case, it has been held that the object of section 197 (1) Cr. P. C. Public servant comes frivolous prosecution. ( 11 ) THE Ld. Lawyer for the O. P. No. 1, has cited Balbir Singh v. D. N. Kandian3. In that case it has been alleged that while the Sub-Inspector and the Constable removed the search of Memo which was in the custody of the Court, it cannot be deemed to be an act purported to have been done by the appellants in discharge of their official duties. ( 12 ) THE Ld. Lawyer for the O. P No. cited another case Bhagwan Prasad Srivastava v. N. P. Mishra4. In that case, it has been held that Section 197 should not be construed too narrowly or too widely. There must be a reasonable connection between the act and the discharge of official duties. The act must fall within the scope and range of the official duties of the public servant concerned. This case refer to A. I. R. 1956 S. C. 44. ( 13 ) IT appears from the decisions cited above that the test must be whether the public servant can or cannot reasonably claim that what he had, he did by virtue of his office. But basically it must be within the scope of the official duty, Baijnath v. State of Madhya Pradesh5. In the instant case at hand, it has been submitted by Ld. But basically it must be within the scope of the official duty, Baijnath v. State of Madhya Pradesh5. In the instant case at hand, it has been submitted by Ld. Lawyer for O. P. No. 1 that the revisionist who is Director of Animal Husbandary and Veterinary Services of Andaman and Nicobar Islands went to attend the meeting of the D. P. C. of the Animal Husbandy and Veterinary department on 28. 5. 1990 in the Chamber of the Chief Secretary of the local Administration, the Ld. Lawyer for the O. P. No. 1 has further submitted that the revisionist had no official business to make any statement as alleged in that meeting. The relevant statement is that the revisionist told the Chief Secretary, Shri G. Ram that the Union had sent some lady to his residence some day with the intention of damaging his reputation and blackmailing him. It is obvious that even if the allegation as made is accepted on its face-value, it appears that the Director of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services, the revisionist was competent to make the statement before the Chief Secretary in the Course of his Official duty for administrative reasons. The particular meeting which the revisionist went to attend had nothing to do with this matter but what we have got to see is wheher the alleged act lay within the scope of the official duties of the person concerned. If there is an attempt to intimidate or coerce the administration from any quarter, then as the head of department one has a duty to bring it to the notice of the concerned officer at the appropriate level and this is certainly within the scope and ambit of the official duty of the person concerned. ( 14 ) IN view of the discussions made above, it is found that the alleged acts of the revisionist come within ambit of Section 197 (1) of Cr. P. C. and no prosecution can be launched against him 5. A. I. R. 1966 S. C. 20. without compliance with the provisions of law. No argument has been advanced by the Ld. Lawyer for the revisionist as to the maintainability of the defamation case instituted by the Union through its President. It is not necessary to go into this point for the purpose of disposal of the revision application. The revisional application succeeds. without compliance with the provisions of law. No argument has been advanced by the Ld. Lawyer for the revisionist as to the maintainability of the defamation case instituted by the Union through its President. It is not necessary to go into this point for the purpose of disposal of the revision application. The revisional application succeeds. Ordered, that the revision is allowed on contest. The impugned order is struck down. The revisionist is discharged from the case. No order as to costs. A plain copy of the order duly Countersigned by the Registrar, High Court Port Blair be given to the Ld. Advocate for the petitioner. Petition allowed. .