Honble SAXENA, J. – This petition filed under section 182.Cr.P.C. has been directed against the order dated 1.10.94 passed by the Special Judge,SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Jaipur by which he partially allowed petitioners revision petition and held that the sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C. for his prosecution for offences u/ss. 147,323,500 IPC was not necessary but the same was necessary for proceeding against him for offence under Section 312,IPC, and to that extent maintained the order dated 28.2.92 of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 3 Jaipur City. (2). Briefly, the facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that on 5.4.1983 respondent No. 2 Durga Singh,who is an advocate,filed a criminal complaint u/ss.147,323 342,504,159 IPC against the petitioner and six others in the court of Judicial Magistrate No. 6, Jaipur City. In that criminal complaint he inter alia averred that on 29.2.83 (dhulandi) he was going on his scooter to Everest Colony, Lal Kothi Scheme,Jaipur, that he saw two persons, who were in police uniform, having a scuffle with one Bhanwar Singh, that those police personnel were also demanding money from the latter, that, thereupon, he intervened and that an altercation between him and those police personnel took place. It was further averred that during the said altercation, a police jeep came there ,where in petitioner Shivlal Mathur Dy. S.P. who was the incharge for maintaining the public order, was also sitting that those police personnel in order to conceal their, fault falsely complained to the petitioner that he (Durga Singh) was under intoxication and quarrelling with them and that thereupon the petitioner and co accused Subhash Vishnoi, SHO PS Gandhi Nagar took him to the police station. It was alleged by Durga Singh that the petitioner hurled abuses, inflicted a cane blow and kept him in the police lock up and that the other co- accused persons also caused injuries to him. It was further alleged that on the same day he was sent to the SMS Hospital for his medical examination where the doctor found that he had neither consumed any alcohal nor was under intoxsication. It was also mentioned by Durga Singh that since he was under a great mental tension he could not file the criminal complaint earlier. (3). It was further alleged that on the same day he was sent to the SMS Hospital for his medical examination where the doctor found that he had neither consumed any alcohal nor was under intoxsication. It was also mentioned by Durga Singh that since he was under a great mental tension he could not file the criminal complaint earlier. (3). The learned Judicial Magistrate after recording the evidence under Sections 200 and 202, Cr.P.C. by his order dated 30.5.83 took cognizance against the petitioner and other co-accused persons for offences under Sections 117,323, 342 and 501 IPC. (4). This is an admitted fact that on 29.3.83, the SHO PS Gandhi Nagar had arrested complainant Durga Singh under Section 34 of the Police Act alleging that the latter under intoxication was hurling vulgar abuses to the public in Everest Colony and had caused interference in the regular flow of traffic on the public way. After investigation, a criminal complaint for offence u/s 34 of the Police Act was filed against Durga Singh in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 7 Jaipur City. There is also no dispute that after trial,vide judgment dated 20.7.83 he was acquitted for the said offence. (5). It appears that the petitioner and all co-accused persons submitted applications u/s 197 Cr.P.C. dated 1.5.84 and 25.7.87 alleging that they were police officials and that on 29.3.83 at the time of alleged occurrence, they were dischar- ging their duties for maintaining public order and, therefore, without procuring prior sanction for their prosecution from the competent authority the proceedings against them in criminal complaint filed by Durga Singh were not maintainable. The learned trial Magistrate by his order dated 28.2.92 rejected those applications on the ground that complainant Durga Singh was acquitted u/s 34 Police Act by the Judicial Magistrate and that the alleged acts were not committed by the accused persons in due discharge or purported discharge of their duty as public servant. (6). The learned trial Magistrate by his order dated 28.2.92 rejected those applications on the ground that complainant Durga Singh was acquitted u/s 34 Police Act by the Judicial Magistrate and that the alleged acts were not committed by the accused persons in due discharge or purported discharge of their duty as public servant. (6). The petitioner along with other co-accused persons challenged the said order by filing a criminal revision petition,which ultimately came to be decided by the Special Judge,SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Case) Jaipur, who held that the petitioner being a member of Rajasthan Police Service was removable by the State Government and was protected by provisions of Sections 197,Cr.P.C. for offence under Section 342 IPC only, because complainant Durga Singh was duly arrested under Section 34 of the Police Act. However, the learned Judge held that the alleged acts of forming unlawful assembly and hurling abuses and inflicting a cane blow by the petitioner to the Durga Singh cannot be held to be acts in discharge of his duties as public servant and, therefore, for offences under Sections 147,323 and 504 IPC, sanction for prosecution under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was not necessary to prosecute him. Hence this petition. (7). I have heard Shri S.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri S.M. Poddar, the learned Public Prosecutor and Miss Sobha Verma, the learned counsel for the complainant Durga Singh at length and carefully perused the record of the lower courts. (8).This is an admitted position that the petitioner has now retired long back from the post of the Additional Superintendent of Police, that he was posted as Dy.S.P. on the day of the alleged incident and was also incharge for maintaining public law and order within the jurisdiction of police station Gandhi Nagar, that he was a member of the Rajasthan Police Service and as such, was a public servant and as such was not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government. There is also no dispute that on 29.3.83, complainant Durga Singh was arrested under Section 34 of the Police Act and his arrest memo was prepared by co-accused Devi Singh, ASI. There is also no dispute that on 29.3.83, complainant Durga Singh was arrested under Section 34 of the Police Act and his arrest memo was prepared by co-accused Devi Singh, ASI. In the arrest memo, it was specifically mentioned that a person who has failed to disclose his identity was deadly drunk and hurling abuses and obstructing the public way and that lateron, his name was found to be Durga Singh, who was also sent to the Medical Jurist SMS Hospital for his medical examination. As per averments made in the criminal complaint, the police personnel had complained to the petitioner that the complainant (Durga Singh) after consuming alcohol was hurling abuses and obstructing the traffic on the public way and that thereafter the petitioner and the SHO had brought him to the police Station, where he was detained in police lock up. Neither in the criminal complaint nor in his statement u/s 200 Cr.P.C. Durga Singh has disclosed as to on which part of his body, the petitioner had dealt a cane blow. Besides this, there is not a fringe of evidence recorded by the Judicial Magistrate to prima facie show that the petitioner was a member of an unlawful assembly having a common object of causing injuries or hurling abuses to the complainant. From the various Roznamcha reports of police Station Gandhi Nagar, copies of which are available in the trial courts file, it is amply borne out that on 29.3.83 due to "dhulandi i.e. the next day of Holi festival various police personnel were deployed for maintaining public law and order in the area falling within the jurisdiction of PS Gandhi Nagar. The petitioner was Circle Officer of that area and was thus discharging his duties and public servant for maintaining public law and order. In the criminal complaint also this fact has been specifically pleaded. it is needless to mention that if the offence is alleged to have been committed while acting or purporting to act in discharge of the official duties of the public servant, provisions of section 197 Cr.P.C. are attrac- ted and prior sanction for prosecution of such a public servant is a sine qua non. (9). it is needless to mention that if the offence is alleged to have been committed while acting or purporting to act in discharge of the official duties of the public servant, provisions of section 197 Cr.P.C. are attrac- ted and prior sanction for prosecution of such a public servant is a sine qua non. (9). In the instant case, the only point which arises for consideration is as to whether offences under Sections 147,323 and 504 IPC, for which the petitioner is sought to be prosecuted, can be held to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties? As mentioned earlier, there is no evidence even to prima facie,suggest that the petitioner was a member of an unlawful assembly having a common object of insulting or causing annoyance or causing injuries to the complainant and that in furtherance of such common object the petitioner had assaulted or used force. Hence to my mind, prima facie, offence under Section 147 IPC is not made out against the petitioner. The allega- tions against the petitioner for the offence u/ss.323 & 504 IPC are very vague and the evidence u/ss. 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. is inconsistent and unworthy of credence. Even, for the sake of argument if the allegation against the petitioner that he hurled abuses or inflicted a cane blow to the complainant is taken to be true on its face value, still then, at the most, it can be held that it was an in excess of the petitioners duty as public servant in discharge of his official function and for such act also prior sanction is necessary to prosecute him. (10). In Pawan Kumar vs. Ruldu Ram (1), the petitioner was Executive Officer of the Municipal Committee, it was one of his functions to see that the provisions of section 76 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 were complied with. The Executive Officer was invested with the powers to carry on administration of the Municipal Committee and to check a person importing goods in the Municipal Committee area and to see as to whether the necessary octroi tax has or has not been paid by such person. The Executive Officer was invested with the powers to carry on administration of the Municipal Committee and to check a person importing goods in the Municipal Committee area and to see as to whether the necessary octroi tax has or has not been paid by such person. It was alleged that he asked Rulduram as to whether he had paid octroi tax in respect of the Bahis,"which he was importing is the Municipal area, to which the latter replied that he had paid octroi tax and produced a receipt. The Executive Officer threre away that receipt and abusively alleged that the complainant was in the habit of importing goods in the municipal area without paying octroi tax and when the complainant protested, the Executive Officer abused him and ordered him to pay Rs. 50/- immediately to the octroi Moharrir as penalty on the threat of otherwise being handed over to the police and thus allegedly extorted Rs. 50/- from complainant Rulduram. A criminal complaint was filed against the Executive Officer and the Magistrate took cognizance against him for offences u/ss 383,500 and 504 IPC without prior sanction of the competent authority for prosecu tion. It was held by the Punjab and Haryana High Court that even if the Executive Officer had wrongly assessed the tax or imposed penalty in excess of his powers, the recovery of the tax and penalty would be an act in discharge of his official duty and, therefore, for the alleged act of extortion under Section 383 IPC the prosecution sanction was necessary. It was further held that offence under section 500 IPC. appeared to be connected with the performance of the duty as Executive Officer for it was based upon the act of the petitioner of saying to the complainant that he had evaded the payment of octroi tax and thereafter imposing penalty on him. it was held that abusing a citizen by public servant though per se does not come within performance of the latters duty as such, but if the public servant is prosecu- ted simultaneously for more than one offence and if any offence out of them is such which requires sanction,then without prior sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C. of the competent authority, the Magistrate can not take cognizance of all the offences against that public servant and try him for those offences. It was, therefore, held that for prosecuting the said Executive Officer for offences under Sections 323,500 and 501 IPC,prior sanction was necessary for all those offences. (11).In Pritam Singh vs. Delhi Administration (2) a traffic police constable in uniform stopped a scooterist who was driving scooter without helmet in contravention of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The constable after preparing Challan detained the scooterist for Composition money and also man-handling and insulting him .It was held that detaining the scooterist even after challaning him for the purpose of the to every of the composition money and further man-handling and insulting him where acts done while discharging official duties as there was reasonable nexus with the alleged act in the discharge of his official duties and that the sanction for his prosecution was necessary under Section 197 Cr.P.C. (12). In Kalyan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (3) a criminal complaint was filed against SHO, PS Jahajpur, alleging that he had prepared a false statement in order to favour a person. It was held that the SHO was discharging his official duty and as such, the cognizance of offence could not be taken against him without prior prosecution sanction. (13). Now adverting to the facts of the case on hand, there was specific averment in the criminal complaint that the police personnel had complained to the petitioner that complainant Durga Singh was under intoxication of liquor, that he was hurling abuses and causing disturbances in the flow of traffic on the public way, that thereupon the petitioner took him to the police station, where he was arrested under Section 34 of the Police Act. It was also alleged that the petitioner hurled abuses and inflicted a cane blow to the complainant. No details of the said acts have been given. These allegations are apparently quite vague and not supported by any evidence. Keeping in view the facts & circumstances of this case, the alleged act of hurling abuses or inflicting a cane blow, though not authorised by any statutory law was connected with discharge or purported discharge of duty of the petitioner as DY.S.P.C.O.,who was maintaining public law and order at that time and as such, those acts have a nexus to the discharge of his duty as public servant. Moreover as per law laid down in Pawan Kumars case (Supra), cannot be jointly tried for the offence u/s 342 IPC and offences u/ss 147,323,504 IPC without procuring prior sanction for prosecution u/s 197 Cr.P.C. Besides this, the alleged incident took place on 29.3.83 i.e. more than 12 years ago. The petitioner has retired long back from Government service and the ends of justice shall not be served by prosecuting him on such vague, lame and uncorroborated allegations. (14). Therefore keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion, that the order passed by the courts below rejecting petitioners application under Section 197 Cr.P.C. amount to abuse of process of the court and, therefore, to secure the ends of justice, it is necessary to drop the proceedings against the petitioner. (15). The upshot of the above discussion is that this petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 4.10.94 passed by the learned Special Judge against petitioner Shivlal Mathur for proceeding against him for offences under Sections 147,323,504 and 342 IPC in criminal complaint No. 1672/88 pending in the court of the Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jaipur City is hereby set aside and the criminal pro- ceedings initiated by the trial court against him are hereby dropped.