Honble MEENA, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order of Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate, Neem-ka-Thana dated 17.11.1992, whereby the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate has taken the cognizance against the accused-petitioner for the offence u/s. 3(ii) and (vii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter, referred to as the Act). (2). Necessary facts to be noticed in short are that on 17.10.90, one Suresh Balai was sent by Jagdish at the house of Ghasi Ram who is nephew of the complainant who threw stones and gave blows to Sushila, niece of the complainant and ran away from that place. The matter was reported to the police but no action was taken. Again on 22.11.90, while Girdhari, son of complainant was returning from the work in the evening then Jagdish, who is Constable in the police, sent his brother Narsi alongwith Bajrang Lal Balai for quarreling with him and for giving beating. These persons caught hold of Girdhari on the way and gave beating. The matter was again reported to the police. On 23.11.90, Girdhari and Jabar sons of complainant alongwith complainant were called at the police station and there the complainant alongwith his sons were beaten by the petitioner. Thereafter, on 17.12.90, a complaint was filed in the court against the petitioner. The matter was again reported to the police. On 23.11.90, Girdhari and Jabar sons of complainant alongwith complainant were called at the police station and there the complainant alongwith his sons were beaten by the petitioner. Thereafter, on 17.12.90, a complaint was filed in the court against the petitioner. The relevant portion of the complaint reads as under:- ^^bl ij Fkkuk FkksbZ dk flikgh fnukad 23-11-90 dks lqcg izkFkhZ dks] izkFkhZ ds yM+ds fxj/kkjh o izkFkhZ ds nwljs iq= >kcj tks v/;kid gS rhuksa dks Fkkus esa cqykdj ys x;k] ,oa nwljs i{k ds ujlh ,oa ctjax yky dks Hkh Fkkus esa cqykdj ys x;sA eqfYte Fkkusnkj us izkFkhZ o izkFkhZ ds iq=ksa ls iwNk vkSj fQj izkFkhZ ds yM+ds fxj/kkjh ,oa izkFkhZ ds nwljs yM+ds >kcj tks fd v/;kid gS] mldks FkIiM+ksa ,oa ykrksa ls ekjuk kq: dj fn;k ,oa taxys esa cnfu;fr ls ,oa xSj dkuwuh rkSj ls cUn dj fn;kA lqcg 9 ls 11 cts rd taxys esa cUn j[kkA izkFkhZ ds yM+ds >kcj us dgk fd esjh Ldwy esa M~;wVh [kjkc gks tk,xh rks mls cqjh&cqjh xkfy;kW fudkyh ,oa djhc 11 cts NksM+k ,oa izkFkhZ dks tcju ogkW jksd fy;k ,oa dgk fd rqe jkthukek djks] izkFkhZ us dgk fd ^^eSa D;k jkthukek d:axkA gesa gh rks ekjihV djrs gSa] xkyh xykSp djrs gSA** Fkkusnkj eqfYte us ogkW xkWo ds djhc ipkl vknfe;ksa dks cqyk fy;k] ,oa muds lkeus izkFkhZ dks Bksdjksa ,oa ?kwalksa ls ekjihV dh ,oa ekW cfguksa dh cqjh&cqjh xkfy;kW fudkyh vkSj izkFkhZ dks csbTtr djus dh dk;Zokgh dhA (3). The complaint was sent to the same police station and after enquiry, the police has given FR. On protest petition by the complainant, the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate has taken the cognizance. Against that impugned order, the petitioner has filed this petition. (4). Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Shri Ajay Gupta for non-petitioner No.2. (5). Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that by giving beating by the petitioner to the respondent No.2, no case is made out under clause (ii) of Sec. 3 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. (4). Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Shri Ajay Gupta for non-petitioner No.2. (5). Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that by giving beating by the petitioner to the respondent No.2, no case is made out under clause (ii) of Sec. 3 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The relevant sub-clause (ii) of Sec. 3 of the Act reads as under :- "(ii) acts with intent to cause injury, insult or annoyance to any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by dumping excreta, waste matter, carcasses or any other obnoxious substance in his premises or neighbourhood." (6). The submission of counsel for the petitioner has no force that injury should be caused only by dumping excreta, waste matter, carcasses or any other obnoxious substance in his premises or neighbourhood. In fact, if any person other than SC/ST acts with intent to cause injury or insult or annoyance to any member of SC/ST by dumping excreta etc. are three independent acts. Therefore, if injury is caused by beating by non SC/ST person it is an offence under Cl. (ii) of Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 3. (7). Therefore, the act of the petitioner i.e. beating to complainants who belong to SC, the petitioner has committed the offence under cl. (ii) of Sub-Sec. (1) Sec. 3 of the Act. (8). The next submission of the counsel for the petitioner that without sanction U/s. 197(3) Cr.P.C. no criminal proceedings can be initiated against the public servant including the policy officials. Counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice the decisions of this Court in the case of Kalyan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (1); and Rameshwar Dayal vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (2). (9). In case of Rameshwar Dayal (supra), the notification issued in 1975 is reproduced wherein all the police officials are covered for the purpose of sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 197 of the Code. Therefore, on the perusal of the judgment, I fully agree with the counsel for the petitioner that before prosecuting the police officials, sanction under sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 197 is necessary, but at the same time, it should be kept in mind that the offence must have been committed while discharging the official duties. Therefore, on the perusal of the judgment, I fully agree with the counsel for the petitioner that before prosecuting the police officials, sanction under sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 197 is necessary, but at the same time, it should be kept in mind that the offence must have been committed while discharging the official duties. Mere wearing the police uniform is not enough to the police official to get benefit of Sec. 197 (3) Cr.P.C. (10). In Pukhraj vs. State of Rajasthan (3), this Court has observed as under: - "the Post Master General gave a kick to a Clerk, it was held that the act of the public servant so alleged could not be said to have been done in purporting exercise of his duty and to such a case, section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure per se could not be attracted. However, it reaffirmed that facts subsequently coming to light during the course of the trial may establish the necessity for sanction and whether or not the sanction is necessary will depend from stage to stage." (11). In State (Delhi Administration) vs. Sube Singh (4) the Division Bench of Delhi High Court has considered the phrase the offence committed by public servant in his official duty and observed as under : — "The simple fact that he was in uniform and he was in possession of a warrant would not confer a licence upon him to behave in any manner he likes. We cannot take wooden attitude in such matters and it can never be said that a police officer is at liberty to abuse and use indecent language and behave in disorderly manner while he is supposed to be on duty. If that view of the matter is taken it would only amount to giving them a licence for commission of offences and that would be an end of rule of law. To our mind the accused in the present case cannot take shelter behind S. 197, Cr.P.C." (12). If we read the contents of the FIR in this case and the observations of Delhi High Court in State vs. Sube Singh (supra), the only conclusion we can reach is that no licence has been given to police officials to beat any person they like. When the petitioner has beaten the complainant in this case, he is not entitled for a shelter U/s. 197 Cr.P.C. (13). When the petitioner has beaten the complainant in this case, he is not entitled for a shelter U/s. 197 Cr.P.C. (13). In the result, this petition has no force and the same is dismissed.