S. K. MOHANTY, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision by accused is directed against order dated 29. 7. 1992 passed by the S. DJ. M. , Talcher, refusing to drop the criminal case for want of sanction, under section 197 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Prayer is to quash the criminal proceeding. ( 2 ) THE facts leading to this revision may not be stated. On 25. 1. 1989 one Sambhunath Sahu lodged an F. I. R. at Kanika Police Station that at 2 p. m. that day while he was going to the plant site for duty, two Central Intelligence Security Force (C. I. S. E.) Security men stopped him at the gate and assaulted him by means of lathi injuring him thereby. The police registered a case under sections 341 and 323, LP. C. but ultimately submitted final report narrating the results of investigation as follows: The informant was working under M/s. L. and T. (a construction company) and was going inside the N. T. P. S. plant through the eastern gale when one C. I. S. F. Constable obstructed him and asked him to show the gate pass. He could not produce the same and picked up quarrel and even abused the Constable in obscene language whereupon the Head Constable D. P. Joshi (petitioner) gave two lathi blows on his back causing injury. On medical examination, simple injuries were detected on the person of the informant. The report is, concluded by stating that the offence revealed was noncognizable being one under section 323, I. P. C. ( 3 ) ON 14. 2. 1992, the final report was received in court. On 19. 2. 1992 the learned S. D. J. M. after perusing the F. I. R. , case diary and other connected papers took cognizance of the offence under section 323, I. P. C. against the petitioner and summoned him to appear. On 29. 7. 1992 the petitioner through his Advocate filed an application to drop the case mainly because of want of sanction under section 197, Cr. P. C. After some discussion, the learned Magistrate took the view that in the facts of the case, the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit under section 197 (2), Cr. P. C. of his order is under challenge in this revision. ( 4 ) MR. P. C. After some discussion, the learned Magistrate took the view that in the facts of the case, the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit under section 197 (2), Cr. P. C. of his order is under challenge in this revision. ( 4 ) MR. A. B. Misra, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submitted that since the informant crossed the check gate and proceeded inside the plant without producing any gate-pass and started abusing the security staff, the latter had the required powers to prevent him from going, further and for such purpose even if the petitioner assaulted the informant, sanction under section 197, Cr. P. C. is necessary to prosecute him and in absence of the same, the learned S. D. J. M. should have recalled the order of taking cognizance. ( 5 ) IN the case diary there exist materials, to show that at the relevant time, the petitioner was going by a cycle through the eastern gate and when the C. I. S. F. Constable on duty asked the informant to get down from the cycle, he did not listen and instead started abusing the Constable in obscene language and at that time the petitioner gave a lathi blow on the informant. On such facts, the question arises whether the petitioner could be prosecuted for the offence under section 323, I. P. C. without sanction under section 197 (2), Cr. P. C. ( 6 ) SECTION 197, Cr. P. C. debars a Magistrate from taking cognizance of an offence against a public servant in certain circumstances without prior sanction of the concerned Government, the object being guard against vexatious proceeding against such servants. The essential requirement of section 197, Cr. P. C. is that the act complained of has reasonable link with discharge of official duty. In other words, a public servant is immuned from prosecution without sanction under section 197, Cr. P. C. in respect of acts done or purported to have been done if the official duties and the acts complained of have reasonable connection in some manner. The test as to necessity of previous sanction is whether at the trial defence could raise a plea that the act complained of was done by virtue of office in discharge of official duty. If the answer is in the affirmative, then previous sanction under section 197, Cr. P. C. is a must. The test as to necessity of previous sanction is whether at the trial defence could raise a plea that the act complained of was done by virtue of office in discharge of official duty. If the answer is in the affirmative, then previous sanction under section 197, Cr. P. C. is a must. As to whether the act done was or was not in proper discharge of official duties can only be gone into al the trial. Previous sanction is necessary even if in discharge of the official duties any excess has been committed. ( 7 ) APPLYING the aforesaid settled position of law to the facts of the case there can be no doubt that the acts complained of in the case at hand would partake the character of acts done in discharge of official duties of the petitioner while obstructing the informant from entering the plant site without gate pass. Consequently previous sanction was essential and therefore the order taking cognizance of the offence without previous sanction is vitiated in law because want of sanction goes to the root of the matter. ( 8 ) IN the result, the revision is allowed and the impugned proceeding is quashed. Petition allowed. .